The device unsuccessful rate was significantly less in the Guideplus (8.7%) than in the GuideLiner (20.4%) (P = 0.022). The Guideplus was frequently used to support the small profile balloon crossing the CTO or 99% stenosis (20.7%), whereas the GuideLiner was not used (0%).
The purpose of guide extension catheter was significantly different between the 2 groups (P < 0.001). Ninety-two lesions were classified as the Guideplus group, whereas 103 lesions were classified as the GuideLiner group. We classified the purpose of guide extension catheter into 4 categories: (1) to advance devices into the target lesion, (2) to engage guide catheter into the ostium, (3) to support the small profile balloon crossing the CTO or 99% stenosis that the microcatheter could not cross, and (4) others. We compared the purpose of guide extension catheter and the device unsuccessful rate between the Guideplus and GuideLiner. The aim of the present study was to compare device performance between the Guideplus and GuideLiner. Recently, the Guideplus (Nipro, Osaka, Japan) has emerged as a new guide extension catheter. The guide extension catheter is frequently used in current percutaneous coronary intervention, and the GuideLiner (Vascular Solutions Inc., Minneapolis, MN) has been the standard guide extension catheter.
