A randomized study was conducted to assess the feasibility of 4 Fr catheters for diagnostic coronary angiograms. A total of 1,114 consecutive patients were randomized to 4 or 5 Fr catheters. Ease of use of catheters was subjectively assessed by the primary operator and the picture quality was assessed by two independent observers with a good interobserver variability (r = 0.94; P < 0.001). Predischarge local complications were recorded by the attending physician. No statistically significant difference was observed in the picture quality for the left coronary artery, right coronary artery, aorta, left ventricle, venous grafts, or renal arteries between the two groups. Fluoroscopy time (7.1 +/- 5.6 for 4 Fr vs. 6.7 +/- 5.7 min for 5 Fr) and contrast quantity (140 +/- 58 vs. 144 +/- 57 ml) were comparable between the two groups. There was a statistically significant difference in favor of the 5 Fr group as regards maneuverability of catheters (93% vs. 79%; P < 0.001), and 5 Fr pigtail catheters crossed the aortic valve easier than the 4 Fr pigtail catheters (91% vs. 81%; P < 0.001). Crossover to the other catheter size or a larger sheath was more frequent with 4 Fr catheters (33/522 vs. 3/592; P < 0.001). Median time to hemostasis was 9 min for 4 Fr and 14 min for 5 Fr (P < 0.001). Of the 4 Fr patients, 84% could be mobilized at 1 hr and 86% of 5 Fr patients at 2 hr. Significant hematomas were observed in 2% with 4 Fr or 5 Fr and small hematomas in 10% and 16%, respectively (P = NS). Time to discharge was comparable in both groups (4.0 +/- 3.2 with 4 Fr vs. 4.3 +/- 3.7 hr with 5 Fr). The 4 Fr catheters are a good alternative for diagnostic coronary angiograms. The increased difficulty in maneuverability and a need for catheter changes in 70% are compensated for in part by easier hemostasis. With increasing use and finesse of these catheters, the difficulty in maneuverability are likely to be overcome.
Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.