Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 7, 2026
A Method for Systematic Electrochemical and Electrophysiological Evaluation of Neural Recording Electrodes
Published on: March 3, 2014
Comparison of physician-rated performance characteristics of hydrophilic-coated guide wires
Anand Shah1, Charles Lau, S William Stavropoulos
1Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA.
Insights
The Glidewire demonstrated superior lubricity and radiopacity compared to the ZIPwire, meeting physician expectations more frequently. This hydrophilic-coated guide wire offers a better balance of properties for medical procedures.
Area of Science:
- Interventional Cardiology
- Medical Device Technology
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- Hydrophilic-coated guide wires are crucial tools in minimally invasive procedures.
- Assessing physician-rated performance is vital for selecting optimal devices.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the physician-rated performance of three hydrophilic-coated guide wires: ZIPwire, HiWire, and Glidewire.
- To determine significant differences in key performance characteristics.
Main Methods:
- A single-blinded, randomized prospective trial.
- Comparison of three standard-shaft, 3-cm, angled-tip hydrophilic-coated guide wires.
- Physician performance ratings on a five-point scale for characteristics like radiopacity and lubricity.
Main Results:
- Glidewire showed significantly better tip and wire radiopacity and lubricity compared to ZIPwire.
- Glidewire and HiWire demonstrated superior lubricity retention versus ZIPwire.
- Glidewire received higher overall balance of properties rating and met expectations more often (95%) than HiWire (75%) and ZIPwire (62.5%).
Conclusions:
- Glidewire offers a superior balance of properties, including enhanced lubricity and radiopacity.
- Physician-rated performance indicates Glidewire may be a preferred choice over ZIPwire.
- No significant differences were observed in torque response, vessel navigation, or tip shape retention.
Purpose:
The present study was undertaken to determine whether hydrophilic-coated guide wires differed significantly according to physician-rated performance.
Materials And Methods:
In this single-blinded, randomized prospective trial, three standard-shaft, 3-cm, angled-tip hydrophilic-coated guide wires were compared: the ZIPwire, HiWire, and Glidewire. Physicians rated performance characteristics on a five-point scale.
Results:
The Glidewire had significantly greater physician-rated tip radiopacity (3.3 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.6; P = .04), wire radiopacity (3.3 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.6; P = .04), and "lubricity" (3.3 +/- 0.6 vs. 2.6 +/- 1.0; P < .01) compared with the ZIPwire. The HiWire and Glidewire did not differ significantly in any of these characteristics. Compared with the ZIPwire (2.4 +/- 1.2), the HiWire (3.0 +/- 0.7; P = .02) and Glidewire (3.2 +/- 0.6; P < .01) had significantly higher-rated lubricity retention. There were no differences in torque response, ability to navigate tortuous vessels, or tip shape retention among the three devices. The Glidewire received a significantly higher rating for overall balance of properties (3.3 +/- 0.6) compared with the HiWire (3.0 +/- 0.7; P = .01) and ZIPwire (2.7 +/- 0.8; P < .01). Overall, operators stated that the Glidewire met their expectations in 95.0% of cases compared with 75.0% for the HiWire (P < .01) and 62.5% for the ZIPwire (P < .01).
Conclusions:
In addition to the highest-rated overall balance of properties, the Glidewire had significantly higher-rated lubricity and radiopacity characteristics compared with the ZIPwire.
