For example, this guidewire it, different situations require different guidewires, there are times when you need to guidewire has a strong supportive ability, there are times when you need to guidewire is more controlled and flexible, and there are times when commonly used guidewire technology can not pass smoothly requires the use of special guidewire guidance technology. Sometimes the guidewire needs to have strong support ability, sometimes it needs to be more flexible, and sometimes the commonly used guidewire technology can not pass smoothly, so you need to use a special guidewire guidance technology. Another example is this cutting balloon, head with 3-4 cutting blades, not to reach the lesion does not open, after reaching the site to open, you can use less pressure on the blood vessel wall cutting and dilation, while the general balloon is through the pressure to dilate the blood vessel. The effect is different. Frankly, I'm not particularly good at it anymore. Usually there is a physician with the highest level of responsibility inside the cardiac catheterization lab who is in control.
What I would like to know is, is this a patient, and if it is a patient, then I think it would be a good candidate for coronary artery bypass grafting, both in terms of the long-term results of the procedure and economically. Because the intervention is only for those with a single lesion that is less difficult and more limited in scope.
Oh if this is a patient, I think it is not appropriate, this patient is more suitable for coronary artery bypass grafting (which is usually said bypass grafting), because we interventional surgery is for uncomplicated not diffuse lesions, if the lesion site is more, for example, this is the left coronary artery, the right coronary artery, there are more than one part of the stenosis has significant stenosis (estimated to be more than 70%-75% stenosis), then the coronary artery bypass grafting is more suitable for those who have a single lesion with less difficulty, both in terms of long-term results and economic perspective. stenosis), then coronary artery bypass grafting is the better outcome and more appropriately priced. Cardiology shouldn't be competing with people's cardiac surgery at this point.
There is also the radial artery route itself, which is thinner than the femoral artery, relatively less convenient to operate, and has less accumulated experience.
And I think I've made it clear enough that such a case should be bypassed, and implanting too many stents is a disadvantage because stents are after all a foreign body, and implanting too many of them will cause localized hyperplasia, which will make it easier to re-stenosis. The price is also not cost-effective
.