Ahmed Aljabali, Mohmmad M Alawajneh, Arafat Hammad, Danh Nguyen, Abdel Rahman Alkasabrah, Khaled Abuein, Ahmed M Altibi
{"title":"Tiger II型导管与judkins导管经桡动脉通道冠状动脉造影的疗效和安全性比较：一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Ahmed Aljabali, Mohmmad M Alawajneh, Arafat Hammad, Danh Nguyen, Abdel Rahman Alkasabrah, Khaled Abuein, Ahmed M Altibi","doi":"10.1080/00015385.2024.2442799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Trans-radial coronary angiogram (TR-CAG) has gained popularity due to lower complication rates compared to transfemoral access. Operators can use either conventional catheters, such as Judkins, or single dedicated catheters, such as Tiger-II. This meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of Tiger-II versus Judkins catheters in TR-CAG.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library through February 2024 for studies comparing Tiger-II and Judkins catheters in TR-CAG. Fixed- and random-effect models pooled estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). Primary outcomes included fluoroscopy time and contrast volume. Secondary outcomes included procedural time, radiation exposure, procedural success, radial artery vasospasm, and crossover rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies with 2879 patients (1799 in Tiger-II and 1080 in Judkins) were included. Tiger-II use significantly reduced fluoroscopy time (SMD = -0.50 min, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.19], <i>p</i> < 0.01), procedural time (MD = -2.00 min, 95% CI [-2.35, -1.66], <i>p</i> < 0.01), and contrast volume (MD = -7.48 ml, 95% CI [-12.66, -2.29], <i>p</i> < 0.01). Radial artery spasm incidence was also lower (OR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.12, 0.75], <i>p</i> = 0.01). There were no significant differences in radiation exposure, procedural success, or crossover rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Tiger-II catheters offer reduced fluoroscopy time, procedural time, contrast volume, and radial artery spasm rates in TR-CAG.</p>","PeriodicalId":6979,"journal":{"name":"Acta cardiologica","volume":" ","pages":"39-43"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The comparative efficacy and safety of Tiger II versus judkins catheters in coronary angiogram via the radial artery access: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Aljabali, Mohmmad M Alawajneh, Arafat Hammad, Danh Nguyen, Abdel Rahman Alkasabrah, Khaled Abuein, Ahmed M Altibi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00015385.2024.2442799\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Trans-radial coronary angiogram (TR-CAG) has gained popularity due to lower complication rates compared to transfemoral access. Operators can use either conventional catheters, such as Judkins, or single dedicated catheters, such as Tiger-II. This meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of Tiger-II versus Judkins catheters in TR-CAG.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library through February 2024 for studies comparing Tiger-II and Judkins catheters in TR-CAG. Fixed- and random-effect models pooled estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). Primary outcomes included fluoroscopy time and contrast volume. Secondary outcomes included procedural time, radiation exposure, procedural success, radial artery vasospasm, and crossover rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies with 2879 patients (1799 in Tiger-II and 1080 in Judkins) were included. Tiger-II use significantly reduced fluoroscopy time (SMD = -0.50 min, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.19], <i>p</i> < 0.01), procedural time (MD = -2.00 min, 95% CI [-2.35, -1.66], <i>p</i> < 0.01), and contrast volume (MD = -7.48 ml, 95% CI [-12.66, -2.29], <i>p</i> < 0.01). Radial artery spasm incidence was also lower (OR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.12, 0.75], <i>p</i> = 0.01). There were no significant differences in radiation exposure, procedural success, or crossover rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Tiger-II catheters offer reduced fluoroscopy time, procedural time, contrast volume, and radial artery spasm rates in TR-CAG.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta cardiologica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"39-43\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta cardiologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00015385.2024.2442799\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta cardiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00015385.2024.2442799","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景：经桡动脉冠状动脉造影（TR-CAG）与经股动脉造影相比，由于并发症发生率较低而越来越受欢迎。操作人员既可以使用传统的导管，如Judkins，也可以使用单个专用导管，如Tiger-II。本荟萃分析比较了Tiger-II导管与Judkins导管在TR-CAG中的安全性和有效性。方法：我们检索了PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus和Cochrane Library，检索了截至2024年2月的比较Tiger-II和Judkins导管在TR-CAG中的研究。固定效应和随机效应模型汇集了优势比（ORs）和标准化平均差异（SMDs）的估计。主要结果包括透视时间和造影剂体积。次要结局包括手术时间、放射暴露、手术成功、桡动脉血管痉挛和交叉率。结果：纳入7项研究，共2879例患者（Tiger-II 1799例，Judkins 1080例）。Tiger-II的使用显著缩短了透视时间（SMD = -0.50 min, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.19], p p p p = 0.01）。在辐射暴露、手术成功率或交叉率方面没有显著差异。结论：Tiger-II导管缩短了TR-CAG的透视时间、手术时间、造影剂体积和桡动脉痉挛率。
The comparative efficacy and safety of Tiger II versus judkins catheters in coronary angiogram via the radial artery access: a meta-analysis.
Background: Trans-radial coronary angiogram (TR-CAG) has gained popularity due to lower complication rates compared to transfemoral access. Operators can use either conventional catheters, such as Judkins, or single dedicated catheters, such as Tiger-II. This meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of Tiger-II versus Judkins catheters in TR-CAG.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library through February 2024 for studies comparing Tiger-II and Judkins catheters in TR-CAG. Fixed- and random-effect models pooled estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). Primary outcomes included fluoroscopy time and contrast volume. Secondary outcomes included procedural time, radiation exposure, procedural success, radial artery vasospasm, and crossover rate.
Results: Seven studies with 2879 patients (1799 in Tiger-II and 1080 in Judkins) were included. Tiger-II use significantly reduced fluoroscopy time (SMD = -0.50 min, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.19], p < 0.01), procedural time (MD = -2.00 min, 95% CI [-2.35, -1.66], p < 0.01), and contrast volume (MD = -7.48 ml, 95% CI [-12.66, -2.29], p < 0.01). Radial artery spasm incidence was also lower (OR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.12, 0.75], p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in radiation exposure, procedural success, or crossover rate.
Conclusion: Tiger-II catheters offer reduced fluoroscopy time, procedural time, contrast volume, and radial artery spasm rates in TR-CAG.
期刊介绍：
Acta Cardiologica is an international journal. It publishes bi-monthly original, peer-reviewed articles on all aspects of cardiovascular disease including observational studies, clinical trials, experimental investigations with clear clinical relevance and tutorials.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
