000 04899nam a22007337a 4500
008 190521s20192019 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022 _a1878-0938
024 _a10.1016/j.carrev.2019.02.016 [doi]
024 _aS1553-8389(19)30149-6 [pii]
040 _aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099 _a31079818
245 _aAdverse Events Associated with the Use of Guide Extension Catheters during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Reports from the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database.
251 _aCardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 20(5):409-412, 2019 05.
252 _aCardiovasc Revasc Med. 20(5):409-412, 2019 05.
252 _zCardiovasc Revasc Med. 20(5):409-412, 2019 May.
253 _aCardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions
260 _c2019
260 _fFY2019
265 _sppublish
266 _d2019-05-21
268 _aCardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 20(5):409-412, 2019 May.
501 _aAvailable in print through MWHC library: 2002 - present
520 _aBACKGROUND/PURPOSE: We aimed to assess the reported complications and event modes for the GuideLiner and Guidezilla extension catheters.
520 _aCONCLUSIONS: Findings from the MAUDE database highlight the complications and modes of events associated with the use of GuideLiner and Guidezilla extension catheters.
520 _aCopyright (c) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
520 _aMETHODS/MATERIALS: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was queried for reported events.
520 _aRESULTS: Of the 65 cases with reported GuideLiner-related issues, 15 (23%) involved the inability to pass equipment through or damage to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) devices in the GuideLiner catheter, 38 (58%) involved GuideLiner catheter fracture, 9 (14%) involved coronary artery dissection, 2 (3%) involved coronary artery perforation, and 1 (1.5%) involved thrombus formation in the catheter. Of the 408 cases with reported Guidezilla-related issues, 53 (13%) involved inability to pass or damaged PCI devices into the Guidezilla catheter, 117 (29%) involved inability to advance the Guidezilla catheter to the target lesion, 59 (14%) involved kinked Guidezilla catheter, mostly because of partial or complete catheter fracture upon further investigation, 164 (40%) involved a broken Guidezilla catheter, 10 (2.5%) involved coronary artery dissection, 2 (0.5%) involved coronary artery perforation, 1 (0.2%)involved aortic dissection, 1 (0.2%) involved thrombosis formation, and 1 (0.2%) involved no-reflow phenomenon.
520 _aSUMMARY: To assess the reported complications and event modes for the GuideLiner and Guidezilla extension catheters, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was queried. There were more reports on Guidezilla-related events during the search period. The events for both extension catheters mainly involved the inability to pass equipment through or damage to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) devices in the extension catheter, extension catheter fracture, coronary artery dissection and perforation and, occasionally, the death of the patients.
546 _aEnglish
650 _a*Cardiac Catheters/ae [Adverse Effects]
650 _a*Coronary Artery Disease/th [Therapy]
650 _a*Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/ae [Adverse Effects]
650 _a*Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/is [Instrumentation]
650 _a*Product Surveillance, Postmarketing
650 _aCoronary Artery Disease/dg [Diagnostic Imaging]
650 _aCoronary Artery Disease/mo [Mortality]
650 _aDatabases, Factual
650 _aEquipment Design
650 _aEquipment Failure
650 _aHumans
650 _aPercutaneous Coronary Intervention/mo [Mortality]
650 _aRisk Assessment
650 _aRisk Factors
650 _aTreatment Outcome
650 _aUnited States
650 _aUnited States Food and Drug Administration
651 _aMedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
657 _aJournal Article
700 _aBernardo, Nelson L
700 _aChen, Yuefeng
700 _aGajanana, Deepakraj
700 _aHashim, Hayder
700 _aIantorno, Micaela
700 _aKhalid, Nauman
700 _aKhan, Jaffar M
700 _aMusallam, Anees
700 _aRogers, Toby
700 _aShah, Arhum A
700 _aShlofmitz, Evan
700 _aWaksman, Ron
790 _aBernardo NL, Chen Y, Gajanana D, Hashim H, Iantorno M, Khalid N, Khan JM, Musallam A, Rogers T, Shah AA, Shlofmitz E, Waksman R
856 _uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2019.02.016
_zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2019.02.016
942 _cART
_dArticle
999 _c4237
_d4237