Feasibility of kissing balloon technique through guide extension catheters: an experimental bench test

Abstract

Previous reports showed that GuideLiner (GL) and Guidezilla (GZ) can accommodate bulky and multiple devices beyond the official profiles. However, feasibility of kissing balloon technique (KBT) through these devices is unknown. The tested devices included 7Fr-GL/GZ and respective three types of 2.5 mm semi-compliant (SC) and non-compliant (NC) balloons: conventional model (CM), tapered-tip model (TM) and latest model (LM). First, three experienced operators attempted to advance all 21 combinations of the 2 balloons through GL/GZ on the guidewires and assessed the crossability in 3 grades: easy, difficult and impossible. Second, the only balloon combinations graded as easy by all operators were tested in the polyurethane-made bifurcation model which required KBT following cross-over stenting. Within the total of 42 device combinations, only one balloon combination of double LM–NC balloons was classified as easy in both GL/GZ by consensus opinion of the operators. While two combinations of LM–SC and LM–SC/NC balloons were classified as difficult in both GL/GZ, all four combinations of LM–SC/NC and CM/TM–NC balloons were classified as difficult only in GL. Other 32 combinations were all classified as impossible. In the bifurcation model, the combination of double LM–NC balloons using GL achieved KBT while the same balloon combination with GZ failed. The feasibility of KBT using child-catheter is highly dependent on the device characteristics. The combination of latest small-profile NC balloons through GL could be clinically applicable.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Chan PH, Alegria-Barrero E, Foin N, Paulo M, Lindsay AC, Viceconte N, et al. Extended use of the GuideLiner in complex coronary interventions. EuroIntervention. 2015;11:325–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Waterbury TM, Sorajja P, Bell MR, Lennon RJ, Mathew V, Singh M, et al. Experience and complications associated with use of guide extension catheters in percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88:1057–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Fabris E, Kennedy MW, Di Mario C, Sinagra G, Roolvink V, Ottervanger JP, et al. Guide extension, unmissable tool in the armamentarium of modern interventional cardiology. A comprehensive review. Int J Cardiol. 2016;222:141–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sharma D, Shah A, Osten M, Ing D, Barolet A, Overgaard CB, et al. Efficacy and safety of the guideliner mother-in-child guide catheter extension in percutaneous coronary intervention. J Interv Cardiol. 2017;30:46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Yoshida R, Ishii H, Morishima I, Tanaka A, Takagi K, Iwakawa N, et al. Impact of adjunctive use of guide extension catheter for mid-term outcome of drug-coated balloon. EuroIntervention. 2019. https://doi.org/10.4244/eij-d-18-01013[Epub ahead of print].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Vishnevsky A, Savage MP, Fischman DL. GuideLiner as guide catheter extension for the unreachable mammary bypass graft. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;92:1138–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Naganuma T, Ishiguro H, Panoulas VF, Fujino Y, Mitomo S, Kawamoto H, et al. Which child catheter should we choose to deliver a bulky bioresorbable vascular scaffold? Int J Cardiol. 2016;203:781–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Fujimoto Y, Tonoike N, Kobayashi Y. Successful delivery of polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent using rapid exchange guide extension catheter. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2017;32:142–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Warisawa T, Goto S, Salazar CH, Akashi YJ, Escaned J. Safety and feasibility of coronary lithotripsy supported by guide extension catheter for the treatment of calcified lesion in angulated vessel. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2019.02.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Warisawa T, Naganuma T, Nakamura S. Off-label use of 7Fr GuideLiner in the bifurcation coronary intervention protecting 2 side branches. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2017;32:392–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Shikuma A, Shiraishi J, Koshi N, Matsubara Y, Nishimura T, Shoji K, et al. bifurcation intervention in single coronary artery. Int Heart J. 2018;59:1458–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Warisawa T, Ishiguro H, Nakajima A, Nakamura S. Novel ‘‘baby-in-mother’’ technique with the GuideLiner in the bifurcation coronary intervention with the protect-wire kept in the side branch. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2017;3:254–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takayuki Warisawa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

TW reports consultancies work for Abbott Vascular and Philips. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 805 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (MP4 886 kb)

Supplementary material 4 (MP4 789 kb)

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 42 kb)

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Warisawa, T., Kuwata, S., Kasahara, M. et al. Feasibility of kissing balloon technique through guide extension catheters: an experimental bench test. Cardiovasc Interv and Ther 35, 269–275 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-019-00622-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Child-catheter
  • Guide extension catheter
  • GuideLiner
  • Guidezilla
  • Kissing balloon inflation