Sheathless guiding catheter versus “slender” sheath/guiding catheter combination in acute coronary syndrome: a propensity-matched analysis of two downsized devices

Purpose We investigated the differences between a sheathless guiding catheter and a Glidesheath slender/guiding catheter combination regarding access-site complications in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods We enrolled consecutive 1108 patients undergoing transradial primary PCI for ACS at our hospital using either a 7.5-Fr sheathless guiding catheter (Sheathless group) or a 7-Fr Glidesheath slender/7-Fr guiding catheter combination (Glidesheath group); 1:1 propensity score matching was performed, and 718 subjects (359 in each group) were included in the propensity-matched sample. Results Compared with the Sheathless group, the Glidesheath group had significantly less frequent ultrasound-diagnosed radial artery occlusion at 30 days (Sheathless: 4.7% vs. Glidesheath: 1.4%, p=0.015). No significant differences were observed in severe radial spasm (Sheathless: 1.4% vs. Glidesheath: 2.0%, p=0.77) or access-site bleeding (Sheathless: 9.8% vs. Glidesheath: 8.6%, p=0.70). Conclusion Thus, 7-Fr Glidesheath slender/7-Fr guiding catheter combination is clearly more advantageous than 7.5-Fr sheathless guiding catheters for decreased risk of radial artery occlusion in transradial PCI for ACS. “Sheathless” vs. “Glidesheath slender” Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Slender Sheath/Guiding Catheter Combination vs. Sheathless Guiding Catheter for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Two Devices

A Glidesheath slender (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) and a sheathless Eaucath guiding catheter (Asahi Intecc, Nagoya, Japan) are two major slender devices utilized in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to investigate the differences in access-site complications between these devices in PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). A total of 1108 consecutive patients who underwent transradial PCI for ACS were enrolled. Transradial PCI was performed using either a 7-Fr Glidesheath slender/7-Fr guiding catheter combination (Glidesheath group) or a 7.5-Fr sheathless guiding catheter (Sheathless group); 1 : 1 propensity score matching was performed, and 728 patients (364 in each group) were included in the propensity-matched population. In the matched patients, univariate analysis revealed that the Glidesheath group had less radial artery occlusion (RAO) at 30 days (Glidesheath: 1.4% vs. Sheathless: 4.1%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.12–0.91, p=0.039), whereas no significant between-group differences were observed in severe radial spasm (Glidesheath: 1.4% vs. Sheathless: 1.9%, OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.23–2.22, p=0.58) or access-site major bleeding (Glidesheath: 1.4% vs. Sheathless: 1.6%, OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.26–2.71, p=1.00). Multivariate analysis revealed that the choice for Glidesheath was significantly associated with less RAO (OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.11–0.93, p=0.036). In conclusion, 7-Fr Glidesheath slender/7-Fr guiding catheter combination is obviously more advantageous than 7.5-Fr sheathless guiding catheters for decreased risk of RAO. The potential low risk of RAO in our findings supports the adoption of the 7-Fr Glidesheath slender sheath/7-Fr guiding catheter combination in transradial PCI for ACS.