Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare procedural outcome of rapid-exchange (RX) monorail versus conventional over-the-wire (OTW) technique for femoropopliteal angioplasty.
Materials and Methods
Demographic data, procedure details, angioplasty success, and complications of 328 consecutive percutaneous transluminal angioplasties (PTAs) were collected from a prospective database and retrospectively analyzed. Procedure details included duration of fluoroscopy, area-dose product, amount of contrast agent, sheath sizes, access route, length of stenosis, presence of total occlusion, technical and anatomical success (residual stenosis <30% in the absence of complications), need for bail-out stenting, and periprocedural complications. The RX technique alone was used in 102 of 328 cases (31%); the OTW technique, in 226 of 328 of cases (68%).
Results
Technical success was 98% for the RX versus 95.4% for the OTW technique (p = 0.2). A significantly greater number of stents had to be implanted due to angioplasty failure when the OTW technique was used (RX, 5.9%; OTW, 13.7%; p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in fluorocopy time, dose-area product, or amount of contrast medium used. The RX system facilitated the use of smaller sheath sizes (5 Fr = 38% and 6 Fr = 59% for RX versus 5 Fr = 16.8% and ≥6 Fr = 82.5% for OTW) but showed only a tendency toward lower overall complication rates (16.6% [17/102] in the RX group versus 19.9% [45/226] in the OTW group; p = 0.09). There was no effect on length of hospitalization. RX monorail systems were not associated with higher procedural costs when compared to conventional OTW technique.
Conclusion
We conclude that RX monorail systems seem to enhance the technical success of femoropopliteal angioplasty. Although smaller sheath sizes can be used due to the lower profile of the RX systems, there is only a tendency toward lower complication rates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hunink MGM, Wong JB, Donaldson MC, Meyerovitz MF, de Vries J, Harrington DP (1995) Revascularization for femoropopliteal disease: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 274:165–171
Molloy KJ, Nasim A, London NJ, Naylor AR, Bell PR, Fischwick G, Bolia A, Thompson MM (2003) Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in the treatment of critical limb ischemia. J Endovasc Ther 10(2):298–303
Linnemeier TJ, McCallister SH, Lips DL, et al. (1993) Radiation exposure: comparison of rapid exchange and conventional over-the-wire coronary angioplasty systems. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 30:11–14
Amighi J, Sabeti S, Dick P, Schlager O, Ahmadi R, Minar E, Schillinger M (2005) Impact of the rapid-exchange versus over-the-wire technique on procedural complications of renal artery angioplasty. J Endovasc Ther 12:233–239
Müller-Hülsbeck S, Frahm C, Behm C, Schäfer PJ, Bolte H, Heller M, Jahnke T (2005) Low-profile stent placement with the monorail technique for treatment of renal artery stenosis: midterm results of a prospective trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16:963–971
Schaefer PJ, Schaefer FKW, Hinrichsen H, Jahnke T, Charalambous N, Heller M, Mueller-Huelsbeck S (2006) Stent placement with the monorail technique for treatment of mesenteric artery stenosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:637–643
Rutherford RB, Baker JD, Ernst C, Johnston KW, Porter JM, Ahn S, Jones DN (1997) Recommended standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia: revised version. J Vasc Surg 26:517–538
Mooney MR, Douglas JS, Mooney J, Madison JD, Brandenburg RO, Fernald R, Van Tassel RA (1990) Monorail Piccolino catheter: a new rapid exchange/ultralow profile coronary angioplasty system. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 20:114–119
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jahnke, T., Schäfer, J.P., Bolte, H. et al. Retrospective Study of Rapid-Exchange Monorail Versus Over-the-Wire Technique for Femoropopliteal Angioplasty. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 31, 854–859 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-007-9145-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-007-9145-z