Advertisement
top banner image  

topleft corner image     top right corner image
 
ACCF/AHA Clinical Guidelines and Statements

CME logo image
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet

JACC Homepage JACC Imaging Homepage
Still not a subscriber to JACC Imaging or JACC Interventions?

take action
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet

acc links
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet

jacc interventions image
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet

     top nav image

     

J Am Coll Cardiol Intv, 2009; 2:636-644, doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2009.05.012
© 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow View Cardiosource Journal Scan
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grossman, P. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Grossman, P. M.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Complications and Guide Catheter Size

Bigger Is Not Better

P. Michael Grossman, MD*,{ddagger},*, Hitinder S. Gurm, MD*,{ddagger}, Richard McNamara, MD§, Thomas LaLonde, MD||, Hameem Changezi, MD, David Share, MD, MPH{dagger}, Dean E. Smith, PhD*, Stanley J. Chetcuti, MD*,{ddagger}, Mauro Moscucci, MD* for the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2)

* Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
{dagger} Departments of Family Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
{ddagger} Veterans Administration Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
§ Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan
|| St. John's Hospital and Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan
Genesys Regional Medical Center, Grand Blanc, Michigan


Figure 1
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 1 Proportion of Patients in the Cohort That Underwent Coronary Intervention With an 8-F Guiding Catheter at a Given Hospital

The use of 8-F guide catheters, compared with 6-F guide catheters, ranged from 0.3% to 72.3% across various hospitals in the consortium.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 2 Adjusted and Unadjusted In-Hospital Outcomes of Patients Treated With 8-F Guiding Catheters Versus 6-F Guiding Catheters

The first plot (left) shows unadjusted odds ratios; the second plot (center) shows risk-adjusted odds ratios; and the third plot (right) shows risk-adjusted and propensity-adjusted odds ratios. Contrast-induced nephropathy, drop in hemoglobin by >3 g/dl, transfusion, coronary artery bypass graft, myocardial infarction, death, and major adverse cardiac events were more common in patients treated with the 8-F guide catheter, even after risk adjustment or after adjustment for the propensity to receive an 8-F guide catheter. Nephropathy requiring dialysis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and stroke were more common in the 8-F treated patients, but these differences were not significant after risk adjustment or after adjustment for the propensity to receive an 8-F guide catheter. CABG = coronary artery bypass graft; CIN = contrast-induced nephropathy; Drop in Hgb = drop in hemoglobin by >3 g/dl; GI = gastrointestinal; Hgb = hemoglobin; MACE = major adverse cardiac event; MI = myocardial infarction; NRD = nephropathy requiring dialysis; Post Proc Trans = post-procedure transfusion; Vasc Comp = vascular complication.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 3 Standardized Mortality Rate in Patients Undergoing PCI Based Upon the Guide Catheter Size

The observed and predicted mortality of 8-F guide catheter PCI patients was higher than the observed mortality of the 6- and 7-F guide patients (p < 0.05 for both). The observed mortality in patients treated with 8-F guide catheters was higher than the predicted mortality (p < 0.05) and the observed mortality of those who underwent PCI with a 6-F guide was lower than the predicted mortality (p < 0.05). The SMR (a ratio of observed mortality and predicted mortality) of patients treated with an 8-F guide was significantly higher than the SMR of patients who underwent PCI with a 6- or 7-F catheter (p < 0.05). PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; SMR = standardized mortality rate.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 4 Hospital Quartiles According to Guide Use and Mortality

Participating hospitals were ranked according to 8-F guide use and divided into quartiles. Within each quartile, the mortality of patients who underwent PCI with 8-F guides was significantly greater than that of the 6-F guide groups (p > 0.003). Q = quartile; other abbreviations as in Figure 3.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 5 Temporal Use of 6-, 7-, and 8-F Guide Catheters for PCI

There was a significant decline in the use of 8-F guide catheters for PCI over the study period (Cochran-Armitage trend p value < 0.0001). Abbreviation as in Figure 3.

 




Advertisement
 
   
 
home link current link search link archive link topics link cardiology careers link