Objective To prospectively compare the imaging quality of CAG and feasibility in manipulation with 4Fr versus 6Fr catheters by transradial CAG.
Methods A total of 866 consecutive patients who required coronary angioplasty were enrolled into this study. First, all patients underwent CAG with a 4Fr catheter by transradial approach, and 1 week later, underwent CAG with a 6Fr catheter before the coronary angioplasty by transradial approach. The handing, torque, selectivity, and stability with the 4Fr and 6Fr catheter were graded from 1 (excellent) to 4 (unacceptable) by the operator. The angiographic quality (QUAL) of CAG was also graded from 1 (unacceptable) to 10 (excellent) by two doctors in the catheter laboratory.
Results There were no statistical differences between the 4Fr catheter and 6Fr catheter in procedural time and fluoroscopy time, whereas compression time in the 4Fr catheter was significantly shorter (p<0.01), bleeding volume was lower (p<0.01), and the rate of access-site complication was significantly lower (p<0.01) compared with the 6Fr catheter. The feasibility scores of the left and right coronary catheter were similar in both catheter sizes (p>0.05). However, the feasibility scores of the pigtail catheter was significantly difference between the 4Fr and 6Fr catheter p<0.05). QUAL using 4Fr or 6Fr catheters were equivalent p>0.05). The total contrast volume was significantly less in the 4Fr catheter group (p<0.05).
Conculsion CAG with 4Fr catheters is technically feasible; it reduces access-site complications after the procedure and the angiographic results were acceptable.