Distal radial versus conventional radial access: Feasibility and success

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

Download Full-text

Evaluating Endoscopic Ipsilateral Endonasal Corridor Approaches to the Anterolateral Wall of the Maxillary Sinus: A Computerized Tomography Study

International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology ◽

10.1055/s-0041-1724092 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Navarat Vatcharayothin ◽

Pornthep Kasemsiri ◽

Sanguansak Thanaviratananich ◽

Cattleya Thongrong

Keyword(s):

Confidence Interval ◽

Maxillary Sinus ◽

Inferior Turbinate ◽

Radial Access ◽

Sinus Wall ◽

Nasal Floor ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Anterolateral Wall ◽

The Mean ◽

Maxillary Sinuses

Abstract Introduction The endoscopic access to lesions in the anterolateral wall of the maxillary sinus is a challenging issue; therefore, the evaluation of access should be performed. Objective To assess the accessibility of three endoscopic ipsilateral endonasal corridors. Methods Three corridors were created in each of the 30 maxillary sinuses from 19 head cadavers. Accessing the anterolateral wall of the maxillary sinus was documented with a straight stereotactic navigator probe at the level of the nasal floor and of the axilla of the inferior turbinate. Results At level of the nasal floor, the prelacrimal approach, the modified endoscopic Denker approach, and the endoscopic Denker approach allowed mean radial access to the anterolateral maxillary sinus wall of 42.6 ± 7.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.9–45.3), 56.0 ± 6.1 (95%CI: 53.7–58.3), and 60.1 ± 6.2 (95%CI: 57.8–62.4), respectively. Furthermore, these approaches provided more lateral access to the maxillary sinus at the level of the axilla of the inferior turbinate, with mean radial access of 45.8 ± 6.9 (95%CI: 43.3–48.4) for the prelacrimal approach, 59.8 ± 4.7 (95% CI:58.1–61.6) for the modified endoscopic Denker approach, and 63.6 ± 5.5 (95%CI: 61.6–65.7) for the endoscopic Denker approach. The mean radial access in each corridor, either at the level of the nasal floor or the axilla of the inferior turbinate, showed a statistically significant difference in all comparison approaches (p < 0.05). Conclusions The prelacrimal approach provided a narrow radial access, which allows access to anteromedial lesions of the maxillary sinus, whereas the modified endoscopic Denker and the endoscopic Denker approaches provided more lateral radial access and improved operational feasibility on far anterolateral maxillary sinus lesions.

Download Full-text

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

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.2454 ◽

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

Download Full-text