SpringerLink
Log in

Reduction of bleeding complications on puncture site after percutaneous coronary intervention using a 6.5-French sheathless guiding catheter

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Heart and Vessels Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Reducing complications at the puncture site after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is important. The diameter of a 6.5-French (Fr) sheathless guiding catheter (GC) is smaller by approximately 2-Fr compared to a 6-Fr conventional sheath. In the present study, we investigated the post-PCI puncture site complications of a transradial approach in each gender while using a 6.5-Fr sheathless GC.

Methods and results

Our study consisted of 332 patients who underwent transradial coronary intervention (TRI) between August 2017 and July 2019. We classified the patients into either the 6.5-Fr sheathless GC (Asahi, Intecc, Aichi, Japan) Group (Sheathless group: n = 182 males, 58 females) or the 6-Fr sheathed GC Group (Sheathed group: n = 150 males, 36 females). We determined the complications at the puncture site: oozing, subcutaneous hemorrhage, formation of hematoma, pseudoaneurysms, and peripheral neuropathy. The body mass index of the patients was greater in the sheathless GC group compared to the sheathed GC group (24.5 ± 3.5 kg/m2 vs. 23.6 ± 3.7 kg/m2, p = 0.02). In males, there was no significant difference in the complication rate at the puncture site between the sheathless GC and sheathed GC groups (19.3% vs. 18.6%, p = 0.88). However, the complication rate at the puncture site in females was higher in the sheathed GC group than in the sheathless GC group (36% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.02). A multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the use of a 6.5-Fr sheathless GC independently reduced the complications in female patients (p = 0.006).

Conclusion

The use of the 6.5-Fr sheathless GC system in a transradial approach reduced the complications at the puncture site in female patients. The 6.5-Fr sheathless GC system may be a safe option for them compared to the conventional sheath system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jolly SS, Amlani S, Hamon M, Yusuf S, Mehta SR (2009) Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J 157(1):132–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabro P, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, Zaro T, Rubartelli P, Briguori C, Ando G, Repetto A, Limbruno U, Cortese B, Sganzerla P, Lupi A, Galli M, Colangelo S, Ierna S, Ausiello A, Presbitero P, Sardella G, Varbella F, Esposito G, Santarelli A, Tresoldi S, Nazzaro M, Zingarelli A, de Cesare N, Rigattieri S, Tosi P, Palmieri C, Brugaletta S, Rao SV, Heg D, Rothenbuhler M, Vranckx P, Juni P, Investigators M (2015) Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 385(9986):2465–2476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kotowycz MA, Dzavik V (2012) Radial artery patency after transradial catheterization. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 5(1):127–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gwon HC, Doh JH, Choi JH, Lee SH, Hong KP, Park JE, Seo JD (2006) A 5Fr catheter approach reduces patient discomfort during transradial coronary intervention compared with a 6Fr approach: a prospective randomized study. J Interv Cardiol 19(2):141–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Isawa T, Horie K, Taguri M, Ootomo T (2020) Access-site complications of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention using sheathless guiding catheters for acute coronary syndrome: a prospective cohort study with radial ultrasound follow-up. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 35(4):343–352

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu M, Kong Q, Cai X, Su G (2019) Influence of remote ischemic conditioning on radial artery occlusion. Heart Vessels 34(5):771–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Honda T, Fujimoto K, Miyao Y, Koga H, Hirata Y (2012) Access site-related complications after transradial catheterization can be reduced with smaller sheath size and statins. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 27(3):174–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mamas M, D’Souza S, Hendry C, Ali R, Iles-Smith H, Palmer K, El-Omar M, Fath-Ordoubadi F, Neyses L, Fraser DG (2010) Use of the sheathless guide catheter during routine transradial percutaneous coronary intervention: a feasibility study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 75(4):596–602

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Noble S, Tessitore E, Gencer B, Righini M, Robert-Ebadi H, Roffi M, Bonvini RF (2016) A randomized study of sheathless vs standard guiding catheters for transradial percutaneous coronary interventions. Can J Cardiol 32(12):1425–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bertrand OF, Rao SV, Pancholy S, Jolly SS, Rodés-Cabau J, Larose E, Costerousse O, Hamon M, Mann T (2010) Transradial approach for coronary angiography and interventions: results of the first international transradial practice survey. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 3(10):1022–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brueck M, Bandorski D, Kramer W, Wieczorek M, Höltgen R, Tillmanns H (2009) A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2(11):1047–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Castle EV, Rathod KS, Guttmann OP, Jenkins AM, McCarthy CD, Knight CJ, O’Mahony C, Mathur A, Smith EJ, Weerackody R, Timmis AD, Wragg A, Jones DA (2019) Routine use of fluoroscopic guidance and up-front femoral angiography results in reduced femoral complications in patients undergoing coronary angiographic procedures: an observational study using an Interrupted Time-Series analysis. Heart Vessels 34(3):419–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, Slagboom T, van der Wieken R (1997) A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study. J Am Coll Cardiol 29(6):1269–1275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Saito S, Tanaka S, Hiroe Y, Miyashita Y, Takahashi S, Tanaka K, Satake S (2003) Comparative study on transradial approach vs. transfemoral approach in primary stent implantation for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results of the test for myocardial infarction by prospective unicenter randomization for access sites (TEMPURA) trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 59(1):26–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Valgimigli M, Gargiulo G, Juni P (2015) Radial versus femoral access for cardiac catheterisation—Authors’ reply. Lancet 386(10011):2394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J, Bhatt DL, Dendale P, Dorobantu M, Edvardsen T, Folliguet T, Gale CP, Gilard M, Jobs A, Jüni P, Lambrinou E, Lewis BS, Mehilli J, Meliga E, Merkely B, Mueller C, Roffi M, Rutten FH, Sibbing D, Siontis GCM (2021) 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 42(14):1289–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kimura K, Kimura T, Ishihara M, Nakagawa Y, Nakao K, Miyauchi K, Sakamoto T, Tsujita K, Hagiwara N, Miyazaki S, Ako J, Arai H, Ishii H, Origuchi H, Shimizu W, Takemura H, Tahara Y, Morino Y, Iino K, Itoh T, Iwanaga Y, Uchida K, Endo H, Kongoji K, Sakamoto K, Shiomi H, Shimohama T, Suzuki A, Takahashi J, Takeuchi I, Tanaka A, Tamura T, Nakashima T, Noguchi T, Fukamachi D, Mizuno T, Yamaguchi J, Yodogawa K, Kosuge M, Kohsaka S, Yoshino H, Yasuda S, Shimokawa H, Hirayama A, Akasaka T, Haze K, Ogawa H, Tsutsui H, Yamazaki T, Japanese Circulation Society Joint Working G (2019) JCS 2018 guideline on diagnosis and treatment of acute coronary syndrome. Circ J 83(5):1085–1196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Yonetsu T, Kakuta T, Lee T, Takayama K, Kakita K, Iwamoto T, Kawaguchi N, Takahashi K, Yamamoto G, Iesaka Y, Fujiwara H, Isobe M (2010) Assessment of acute injuries and chronic intimal thickening of the radial artery after transradial coronary intervention by optical coherence tomography. Eur Heart J 31(13):1608–1615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim Y, Ahn Y, Kim MC, Sim DS, Hong YJ, Kim JH, Jeong MH (2018) Gender differences in the distal radial artery diameter for the snuffbox approach. Cardiol J 25(5):639–641. https://doi.org/10.5603/cj.2018.0128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Abdelaal E, Brousseau-Provencher C, Montminy S, Plourde G, MacHaalany J, Bataille Y, Molin P, Dery JP, Barbeau G, Roy L, Larose E, De Larochelliere R, Nguyen CM, Proulx G, Costerousse O, Bertrand OF, Interventional Cardiologists at Quebec Heart-Lung I (2013) Risk score, causes, and clinical impact of failure of transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6(11):1129–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mamas MA, Fraser DG, Ratib K, Fath-Ordoubadi F, El-Omar M, Nolan J, Neyses L (2014) Minimising radial injury: prevention is better than cure. EuroIntervention 10(7):824–832. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV10I7A142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Saito S, Ikei H, Hosokawa G, Tanaka S (1999) Influence of the ratio between radial artery inner diameter and sheath outer diameter on radial artery flow after transradial coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 46(2):173–178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gibney MA, Arce CH, Byron KJ, Hirsch LJ (2010) Skin and subcutaneous adipose layer thickness in adults with diabetes at sites used for insulin injections: implications for needle length recommendations. Curr Med Res Opin 26(6):1519–1530

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There is no financial support for the present study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology and Clinical Examination, Faculty of Medicine, Oita University, 1-1 Idaigaoka, Hasama, Yufu, Oita, 879-5593, Japan

    Hidefumi Akioka, Kunio Yufu, Taisuke Harada, Koshiro Akamine, Tetsuya Uemura, Masaki Takahashi, Kyohei Nishimizu, Kei Hirota, Yumi Ishii, Shintaro Kira, Keisuke Yonezu, Ichitaro Abe, Katsunori Tawara, Hidekazu Kondo, Shotaro Saito, Akira Fukui, Norihiro Okada, Tetsuji Shinohara, Yasushi Teshima, Mikiko Nakagawa & Naohiko Takahashi

Authors
  1. Hidefumi Akioka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kunio Yufu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Taisuke Harada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Koshiro Akamine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tetsuya Uemura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masaki Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kyohei Nishimizu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kei Hirota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yumi Ishii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Shintaro Kira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Keisuke Yonezu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ichitaro Abe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Katsunori Tawara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Hidekazu Kondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Shotaro Saito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Akira Fukui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Norihiro Okada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Tetsuji Shinohara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Yasushi Teshima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Mikiko Nakagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Naohiko Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hidefumi Akioka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akioka, H., Yufu, K., Harada, T. et al. Reduction of bleeding complications on puncture site after percutaneous coronary intervention using a 6.5-French sheathless guiding catheter. Heart Vessels 37, 954–960 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-021-02005-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-021-02005-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation