These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A prospective randomized trial comparing the benefits and limitations of 6Fr and 8Fr guiding catheters in elective coronary angioplasty: clinical, procedural, angiographic, and economic end points.
    Author: Talley JD, Mauldin PD, Becker ER.
    Journal: J Interv Cardiol; 1995 Aug; 8(4):345-53. PubMed ID: 10155247.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To determine the relation between guiding catheter size, procedural and angiographic details, and cost of coronary angioplasty. BACKGROUND: Miniaturized angiographic equipment used during coronary angioplasty is proposed as a method to decrease the duration of supine bed rest, length of hospital stay, and cost of expensive inpatient hospitalization. METHODS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized to undergo elective coronary angioplasty with a 6Fr (external diameter, 0.079-in; internal diameter 0.062-in) or 8Fr (external diameter, 0.105-in internal diameter, 0.078-0.079-in) guiding catheter. Standard balloon dilatation catheters were used. END POINTS: 1 degree peripheral vascular complications, 2 degree technical and procedural outcomes; quantitative and qualitative quality of the coronary angiograms; and the in-hospital ("bottom up" cost accounting of equipment, supplies, support personnel, postcoronary angioplasty room), and physician cost (using Resource Based Relative Value Scale). RESULTS: There was no difference in peripheral vascular complications between the two groups (6Fr, 21%; 8Fr, 30%; P = NS). Less contrast medium was used with the 6Fr guiding catheters (6Fr, 178 +/- 102 mL; 8Fr, 257 +/- 147 mL; P = 0.0001). The qualitative quality of the angiograms was better with 8Fr than with 6Fr guiding catheters. For the entire population, the total cost of coronary angioplasty was less with 6Fr guiding catheters ($3,956 +/- $2,415) than with 8F guiding catheters ($5,073 +/- $3,985, P = 0.03). Excluding patients with either a coronary or peripheral vascular complication, there was less cost savings (6F, $3,720 +/- $1,338; 8F, $4,376 +/- 2,699, P = 0.05). Independent variables associated with increased cost included: large body mass index; hypercholesterolemia; nonionic contrast media; 8F guiding catheter; complex lesions; and duration of procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The use of smaller guiding catheters led to use of less contrast medium with a modest decrease in angiographic visualization. The cost savings seen with 6F guiding catheters is multifactorial due to smaller arteriotomy accompanying sheath insertion and reduced rate of clinically significant coronary and peripheral vascular complications.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]