ReviewCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2026
Guide extension catheters in coronary intervention: device selection, technical insights, and clinical applications.
Review in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drive shaft sheath may work as guide extension catheter in rotational atherectomy.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Risk Stratification in Cardiovascular Medicine for Prognostic Assessment and Therapeutic Decision-Making: From Atrial Fibrillation to the Broader Disease Spectrum.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Review
- Morphology Matters: Persistent Iatrogenic Aorto-Coronary Dissection Despite Initial Sealing Treated with a Stent-in-Stent Bailout Strategy: A Case Report and Literature Review.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- Clinical expert consensus document on rotational atherectomy from the Japanese association of cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics: update 2026.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Article
- Safety and efficacy of a novel traction balloon technique for guide-extension advancement in complex coronary interventions: a case series.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has evolved significantly with technological advances, allowing for higher procedural success rates and improved patient outcomes. However, the growing complexity of cases involving severely calcified lesions, tortuous vessels, and chronic total occlusions has increased procedural challenges. In such scenarios, the guide extension catheter (GEC, or guiding catheter extension) plays a critical role by enhancing device passage and providing additional backup support, making it indispensable in modern PCI. Various types of GECs offer distinct characteristics that influence their selection based on lesion type, device compatibility, and procedural requirements. The GEC is used for multiple purposes, including backup support, deep engagement, imaging device insertion, stent protection, thrombectomy, and foreign body removal. Despite its utility, GEC use is associated with potential complications, including vessel injury, thrombosis, air embolism, and hemodynamic instability. Careful technique and proper selection are critical to minimizing risks. Overall, the GEC is an essential tool in complex PCI procedures, offering significant advantages in improving procedural success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41077588What 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.