Current practice of transradial approach for coronary procedures: A survey by the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) and the Italian Radial Club

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 154-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Rigattieri ◽  
Orazio Valsecchi ◽  
Alessandro Sciahbasi ◽  
Francesco Tomassini ◽  
Ugo Limbruno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Current Practice ◽  
Interventional Cardiology ◽  
Italian Society ◽  
Transradial Approach ◽  
Coronary Procedures

Downsizing – the Future of Interventional Cardiology

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Giovanni Amoroso ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Contrast Agent ◽  
Vascular Complications ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Interventional Cardiology ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Transradial Approach ◽  
Technical Developments ◽  
Coronary Procedures ◽  
Angiographic Image

The concept of downsized catheters (i.e., using catheters smaller than 6 French) for invasive coronary procedures, such as diagnostic cardiac catheterisation and percutaneous coronary intervention, has been developing over the years, particularly as a result of the rise of the transradial approach. Recent advances have allowed the use of smaller and sheathless catheters, which confer a number of advantages – such as fewer vascular complications, reduced use of contrast agent and reduced haemostasis – thus increasing patient safety and comfort and allowing more rapid patient mobilisation. Reductions in patient complications, number and length of hospital stay, and amount of contrast agent used can also lead to cost savings. While the use of smaller catheters has been hindered in the past because of poor angiographic image quality, new automated contrast injectors have helped overcome this limitation. There is a need to make interventional cardiologists worldwide more aware of the benefits of downsizing, in the light of the latest technical developments and the increased use of transradial approach.

scholarly journals CRT-100.88 Feasibility And Complications Of Left Versus Right Transradial Approach For Percutaneous Coronary Procedures

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. S25
Author(s):  
Yassir M. El haddad ◽  
Hussein Heshmat Kassem ◽  
Mohamed Abdel Meguid Mahdy ◽  
Assem Abdel Aziz Hashad
Keyword(s):  
Transradial Approach ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Coronary Procedures

Transradial approach (left vs right) and procedural times during percutaneous coronary procedures: TALENT study

2011 ◽  
Vol 161 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Sciahbasi ◽  
Enrico Romagnoli ◽  
Francesco Burzotta ◽  
Carlo Trani ◽  
Alessandro Sarandrea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transradial Approach ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Coronary Procedures

Current Practice in Neonatal Interventional Cardiology

NeoReviews ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. e590-e597
Author(s):  
John P. Breinholt
Keyword(s):  
Current Practice ◽  
Interventional Cardiology

Is the Complication Rate of Ulnar and Radial Approaches for Coronary Artery Intervention the Same?

Angiology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 68 (10) ◽  
pp. 919-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xile Bi ◽  
Qingsheng Wang ◽  
Defeng Liu ◽  
Quan Gan ◽  
Li Liu
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Arterial Occlusion ◽  
Ulnar Artery ◽  
Diameter Ratio ◽  
Transradial Approach ◽  
Single Procedure ◽  
Single Center Study ◽  
Coronary Procedures

We compared the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent coronary artery intervention by the transulnar and transradial artery approaches. In this 1 year, single-center study, patients were randomized to either a radial artery (RA) or ulnar artery (UA) group. Of 538 patients, the primary outcome, arterial occlusion of a forearm artery, occurred in 21 of 225 patients in the RA group compared to 6 of 220 patients in the UA group (9.3% vs 2.7%, P = .007). The rate of arterial occlusion was significantly lower following ulnar access compared to radial (odds ratio [OR] = 3.85, P = .006). A higher risk of occlusion was associated with repeated procedures rather than a single procedure (OR = 5.14, P = .003), smoking (OR = 2.39, P = .04), and arterial to sheath diameter ratio of ≤1 (OR = 2.62, P = .03). However, the disadvantage of UA was an increase of incidence of hematomas (13.2% vs 5.8%, P = .01) and symptoms of discomfort (15.5% vs 5.8%, P = .002). In conclusion, the transulnar strategy proved to be noninferior to the transradial approach for coronary procedures ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01979627).

scholarly journals Transradial Approach versus Anatomical Snuff Box Distal Radial Access for Coronary Procedures

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 716-730
Author(s):  
Saeed Shalaby Montaser ◽  
Ahmed Mohamed Emara ◽  
Shehab Adel Eletriby ◽  
Ahmed A. Tawfeek
Keyword(s):  
Transradial Approach ◽  
Radial Access ◽  
Coronary Procedures
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document