Taking new “poke” at femoral access: Applying optimal technique to minimize complications

2021 ◽  
Vol 97 (7) ◽  
pp. 1386-1386
Author(s):  
George W. Vetrovec
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Access ◽  
Optimal Technique

Propensity-adjusted cost analysis of radial versus femoral access for neuroendovascular procedures

2020 ◽  
pp. neurintsurg-2020-016728
Author(s):  
Joshua S Catapano ◽  
Andrew F Ducruet ◽  
Stefan W Koester ◽  
Tyler S Cole ◽  
Jacob F Baranoski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Hospital Costs ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Diagnostic Procedures ◽  
Femoral Access ◽  
Catheter Size ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Procedure Type ◽  
Angiographic Findings

BackgroundTransradial artery (TRA) access for neuroendovascular procedures is associated with fewer complications than transfemoral artery (TFA) access. This study compares hospital costs associated with TRA access to those associated with TFA access for neurointerventions.MethodsElective neuroendovascular procedures at a single center were retrospectively analyzed from October 1, 2018 to May 31, 2019. Hospital costs for each procedure were obtained from the hospital financial department. The primary outcome was the difference in the mean hospital costs after propensity adjustment between patients who underwent TRA compared with TFA access.ResultsOf the 338 elective procedures included, 63 (19%) were performed through TRA versus 275 (81%) through TFA access. Diagnostic procedures were more common in the TRA cohort (51 of 63, 81%) compared with the TFA cohort (197 of 275, 72%), but the difference was not significant (p=0.48). The TRA cohort had a shorter length of hospital stay (mean (SD) 0.3 (0.5) days) compared with the TFA cohort (mean 0.7 (1.3) days; p=0.02) and lower hospital costs (mean $12 968 ($6518) compared with the TFA cohort (mean $17 150 ($10 946); p=0.004). After propensity adjustment for age, sex, symptoms, angiographic findings, procedure type, sheath size, and catheter size, TRA access was associated with a mean hospital cost of $2514 less than that for TFA access (95% CI −$4931 to −$97; p=0.04).ConclusionNeuroendovascular procedures performed through TRA access are associated with lower hospital costs than TFA procedures. The lower cost is likely due to a decreased length of hospital stay for TRA.

scholarly journals Cardiogenic shock and radial access in patients with an acute ST elevation myocardial infarction

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Zahn ◽  
M Hochadel ◽  
B Schumacher ◽  
M Pauschinger ◽  
C Stellbrink ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
St Elevation Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Strong Variation ◽  
Access Site ◽  
Femoral Access ◽  
Radial Access ◽  
St Elevation ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) in patients (pts) with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is the strongest predictor of hospital mortality. Radial in contrast to femoral access in STEMI pts might be associated with a lower mortality. However, little is known on radial access in CS pts. Methods We retrospectively analysed all STEMI pts between 2009 and 2015 who sufferend from CS and who were included into the ALKK PCI registry. Pts treated via a radial access were compared to those treated via a femoral access. Results Between 2009 and 2015 23796 STEMI pts were included in the registry. 1763 (7.4%) of pts were in CS. The proportion of radial access was 6.6%: in 2009 4.0% and in 2015 19.6%, p for trend <0.0001 with a strong variation between the participating centres (0% to 37%). Conclusions Radial access was only used in 6.6% of STEMI pts presenting in CS. However, a significant increase in the use of radial access was observed over time (2009: 4%, 2015 19.6%, p<0.001), with a great variance in its use between the participating hospitals. Despite similar pt characteristics the difference in hospital mortality according to access site has to be interpretated with caution. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals Transpedal Approach in Failed Antegrade Attempt of Lower Limb Peripheral Arterial Disease—A Review with Different Treatment Strategies

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (03) ◽  
pp. 143-148
Author(s):  
Ranjit Kumar Nath ◽  
Siva Subramaniyan ◽  
Neeraj Pandit ◽  
Deepankar Vatsa
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Peripheral Arterial Disease ◽  
Femoral Artery ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Retrograde Approach ◽  
Femoral Access ◽  
Antegrade Approach ◽  
Peripheral Arterial

AbstractTranspedal access is an evolving technique primarily used in patients after failed femoral antegrade approach to revascularize complex tibiopedal lesions. In patients who are at high risk for surgery the transpedal access may be the only option in failed antegrade femoral access to avoid amputation of the limbs. In recent years transpedal access is used routinely to revascularize supra-popliteal lesions due to more success and less complications over femoral artery approach. Retrograde approach parse will not give success in all cases and importantly success depends on techniques used. There are different techniques that need to be used depending on lesion characteristics, comorbidities, and hardware available to improve success with less complications. This review provides different strategies for successful treatment of iliac and femoral artery lesions by transpedal approach after failed antegrade femoral attempt.

scholarly journals Transcatheter closure of Patent ductus arteriosus in a child with IVC interruption through standard femoral access: a case report

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjeev H. Naganur ◽  
C. R. Pruthvi ◽  
Dinakar Bootla ◽  
Krishna Prasad ◽  
V. Krishna Santosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Patent Ductus Arteriosus ◽  
Transcatheter Closure ◽  
Ductus Arteriosus ◽  
Femoral Access ◽  
Patent Ductus

scholarly journals Expert consensus-based clinical practice guidelines management of intravascular catheters in the intensive care unit

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-François Timsit ◽  
Julien Baleine ◽  
Louis Bernard ◽  
Silvia Calvino-Gunther ◽  
Michael Darmon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Therapeutic Strategies ◽  
Brachiocephalic Vein ◽  
Central Vein ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Femoral Access ◽  
Mechanical Complications ◽  
French Speaking

Abstract The French Society of Intensive Care Medicine (SRLF), jointly with the French-Speaking Group of Paediatric Emergency Rooms and Intensive Care Units (GFRUP) and the French-Speaking Association of Paediatric Surgical Intensivists (ADARPEF), worked out guidelines for the management of central venous catheters (CVC), arterial catheters and dialysis catheters in intensive care unit. For adult patients: Using GRADE methodology, 36 recommendations for an improved catheter management were produced by the 22 experts. Recommendations regarding catheter-related infections’ prevention included the preferential use of subclavian central vein (GRADE 1), a one-step skin disinfection(GRADE 1) using 2% chlorhexidine (CHG)-alcohol (GRADE 1), and the implementation of a quality of care improvement program. Antiseptic- or antibiotic-impregnated CVC should likely not be used (GRADE 2, for children and adults). Catheter dressings should likely not be changed before the 7th day, except when the dressing gets detached, soiled or impregnated with blood (GRADE 2− adults). CHG dressings should likely be used (GRADE 2+). For adults and children, ultrasound guidance should be used to reduce mechanical complications in case of internal jugular access (GRADE 1), subclavian access (Grade 2) and femoral venous, arterial radial and femoral access (Expert opinion). For children, an ultrasound-guided supraclavicular approach of the brachiocephalic vein was recommended to reduce the number of attempts for cannulation and mechanical complications. Based on scarce publications on diagnostic and therapeutic strategies and on their experience (expert opinion), the panel proposed definitions, and therapeutic strategies.

scholarly journals Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Chiarito ◽  
D Cao ◽  
J Nicolas ◽  
A Roumeliotis ◽  
D Power ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Coronary Angiography ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Femoral Access ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Radial Access ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background The presence of any benefits associated with radial or femoral access among patients undergoing coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is still debated. Purpose Our aim is to provide a comprehensive quantitative appraisal of the effects of access site on the risks of stroke, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without PCI. Methods In January 2020, we searched PubMed, Embase, and meeting abstracts for randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography with or without subsequent PCI. Odds ratios (OR) were used as metric of choice for treatment effects with random-effects models. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were stroke and myocardial infarction. Primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Secondary endpoints were all cause mortality and vascular complications. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I-squared index. This study is registered with PROSPERO. Results We identified 31 trials, including 30,414 patients. Risks of stroke (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76–1.64, I2=0%) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79–1.03, I2=0%) were comparable between radial and femoral access. Radial access was associated with a reduction for the risk of major bleeding as compared to femoral access (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42–0.67, I2=3.3%) with a number needed to treat of 92. Findings were consistent regardless clinical features and procedure performed, with the only exception of an increased benefit of the radial access in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (p forinteraction=0.005). The risk for all-cause mortality (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61–0.89, I2=0%) and vascular complication (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.23–0.44, I2=16.7%) was significantly lower in the radial compared to femoral access group. Conclusions In patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without PCI, radial compared to femoral access did not reduce the risk of stroke and myocardial infarction, with no impact on the effect estimates of clinical presentation, age, gender, or subsequent PCI. Whereas, radial access is associated with a significant risk reduction of major bleeding as compared to femoral access. The benefit favoring radial access is of important clinical relevance in view of the relatively low number needed to treat to prevent a major bleeding and the significant impact on mortality. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document