The Proximal
Steerable Guide Catheter
A New Direction in Vascular Access.
Addressing the challenge
Giving the tools that Surgeons Need and Want
Limitations of Current Tools
Standard catheters are rigid and pre-shaped, requiring multiple device exchanges.
A physician's “building a path” process is slower, potentially increasing radiation exposure, and risk of complications.
Tortuous paths utilizing limiting current tools dictate femoral access
Increased Safety with Radial Access
Reduced Bleeding Complications
Over 100,000 patients die each year from a femoral access complication.
The radial approach is associated with a lower risk of bleeding complications compared to the femoral approach.
There is a 50% less chance of a transfusion required with a radial approach.
Smaller Puncture Site
The radial artery is smaller in diameter than the femoral artery, which leads to a smaller puncture site and reduced risk of bleeding.
Easier Compression
The radial artery is more superficial and easier to apply compression to, further reducing the risk of bleeding.
Yet, a vast majority of neuro-interventionalists use the riskier femoral approach due to difficulty navigating the aortic arch from the wrist.
​
​
Why Radial is Favored
Lower access-site bleeding and vascular complications
​
Faster ambulation and earlier discharge
​
Greater patient comfort; useful when anticoagulated
or in obesity
When Femoral is Preferred
Need for large-bore access or complex device delivery
Unfavorable arm anatomy, severe tortuosity, or radial spasm/failure
Use Across Specialties
• Neurovascular: Diagnostic cerebral angiography and many endovascular treatments increasingly feasible trans-radially; due to tortuous pathways, femoral is still used a majority of the time.
• Peripheral: Limb/visceral interventions can be
performed radially in suitable cases, though femoral often preferred for larger devices or complex anatomies.
​
• Cardiovascular: Coronary angiography/PCI, selected structural/visceral work.
​​​​