ArticleAnatolian journal of cardiology2016
GuideLiner catheter application in complex coronary lesions: experience of two centers.
Article in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Safety and Efficacy of Guidezilla Catheter (Mother-in-Child Catheter) in Complex Coronary Interventions: An Observational Study.Cardiology research · 2019Article
- The Efficacy and Safety of Using Extension Catheters in Complex Coronary Interventions: A Single Center Experience.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2017Article
- Citius, Altius, Fortius: The impact of guide catheter extensions in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2016Article
- Are catheter extension devices one step forward for complex coronary interventions?Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2016Article
- Guide catheter extension systems: Hype or a need?Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGuideLiner catheter provides adequate back-up support and a coaxial guide engagement for stent delivery in complex coronary anatomies. In this study, we aimed to present one of the largest series of experience with GuideLiner catheter utilized for challenging percutaneous coronary interventions in two centers.
methodsWe retrospectively collected the coronary angiography records of 64 patients between January 1, 2012 and August 1, 2014 in whom conventional techniques failed for stent delivery and 5-in-6 Fr GuideLiner catheter was used for this purpose. The data were assessed in terms of the lesion characteristics, procedural success, and complications. Descriptive statistics and frequencies were used in statistical analyses.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 69.8±10.0 years. Femoral approach was employed in all cases. Lesions were mostly (90.6%) class B2 or C according to the AHA/ACC lesion classification. The GuideLiner catheter was mainly used to increase back-up of the guide catheter (85.9%), and in 95.3% of all cases, the procedure was successful. The mean depth of the GuideLiner catheter intubation was 30.3±21.6 mm. None of the patients had coronary dissection or major complications.
conclusionIn this study, we presented a large registry of two centers used the GuideLiner catheter. The device effectively allowed stent delivery in challenging lesions, where conventional techniques have failed, without major complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.