Table 2.
Comparison between sub-groups based on pullback length and access site
| Variable | 54 mm, n = 583, n (%) | 75 mm, n = 201, n (%) | p value | Femoral, n = 456, n (%) |
Radial, n = 328, n (%) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access—femoral | 375 (64.3) | 81 (40.3) | – | – | – | – |
| Access—radial | 208 (35.7) | 120 (59.7) | – | – | – | – |
| Pullback length (54 mm) | – | – | – | 375 (82.2) | 208 (63.4) | – |
| Pullback length (75 mm) | – | – | – | 81 (17.8) | 120 (36.6) | – |
| Pullback completeness analysis | ||||||
| Incomplete stent/lesion | 55 (9.4) | 3 (1.5) | 0.002 | 38 (8.3) | 20 (6.1) | 0.685 |
| Incomplete distal reference | 84 (14.4) | 15 (7.5) | 0.032 | 68 (14.9) | 31 (9.5) | 0.077 |
| Incomplete proximal reference | 25 (4.3) | 5 (2.5) | 0.300 | 19 (4.2) | 11 (3.4) | 0.722 |
| Incomplete region of interest (ROI) | 106 (18.2) | 20 (10.0) | 0.020 | 85 (18.6) | 41 (12.5) | 0.076 |
| Classification of pullback image quality | ||||||
| Class 1: excellent quality throughout the pullback | 221 (37.9) | 63 (31.5) | 0.379 | 190 (41.7) | 94 (28.7) | 0.001 |
| Class 2: quality issue with the references only | 293 (50.3) | 116 (58.0) | 0.160 | 221 (48.5) | 188 (57.5) | 0.032 |
| Class 3: quality issue with the lesion/ stented segment only | 23 (3.9) | 5 (2.5) | 0.289 | 15 (3.3) | 13 (4.0) | 0.468 |
| Class 4: quality issue with both the lesion/ stented segment and references | 46 (7.9) | 16 (8.0) | 0.767 | 30 (6.6) | 32 (9.8) | 0.098 |
| Reasons affecting quality | ||||||
| Inadequate contrast volume | 102 (30.4) | 26 (19.7) | 0.035 | 73 (29.6) | 55 (24.9) | 0.605 |
| Inadequate contrast flow | 83 (24.7) | 37 (28.0) | 0.698 | 57 (23.1) | 63 (28.5) | 0.236 |
| Catheter not flushed | 7 (2.1) | 5 (3.8) | 0.402 | 5 (2.0) | 7 (3.2) | 0.605 |
| Artifact (sew-up, fold-over, out of screen etc.) | 91 (27.1) | 22 (16.7) | 0.115 | 75 (30.4) | 38 (17.2) | 0.006 |
| Occlusive lesion | 4 (1.2) | 3 (2.3) | 0.616 | 2 (0.8) | 5 (2.3) | 0.282 |
Bold values indicate p < 0.050