A retrospective comparative study of guiding catheters for elective percutaneous coronary interventions for simple circumflex lesions: active vs. passive support.

Abstract

Background: In percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), the ability to anticipate procedural challenges and a comprehensive knowledge of specialized equipment are paramount. Among these, the choice of guide catheters is crucial. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent elective PCI procedures targeting type A and B1 circumflex artery lesions.

Methods: A total of 311 patients were categorized into two groups based on selection of guiding catheter: Group-1 used passive support catheters, whereas Group-2 employed standard Judkins catheters. We assessed the differences in procedural duration and characteristics, and contrast medium dosage between the two groups.

Results: In the Group-2, the utilization of extra support wire (7.8% vs. 17.3%, P=0.023), repeated predilatation (6.8% vs. 15.4%, P=0.031), and guide catheter exchange (2.9% vs. 9.1%, P=0.044) was more prevalent. Additionally, in the Group-2, the amount of contrast agent used was higher (146±43 vs. 110±37, P<0.001) and the procedure duration was longer (35±16 vs. 25±8, P<0.001).

Conclusions: In our study, when comparing the use of a Judkins catheter to a passive support catheter for type A/B1 circumflex artery lesions, the group utilizing the passive support catheter exhibited advantages in terms of procedure duration, usage of interventional materials, and contrast consumption. The choice of the guide catheter plays a pivotal role in performing PCI.