Abstract 374: Trans-radial Access Angiography Learning Curve

Introduction: Radial artery access has been adopted widely around the world as standard best practice for coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Radial artery access offers benefits in regard to reduced major bleeding, reduced hospital stay, fewer vascular complications, similar procedural times, patient preference and a mortality benefit in acute coronary syndrome/STEMI management. Despite transradial access being best practice, there has been a slow uptake of this technique amongst some cardiologists/interventionalists, particularly in the USA. This may partially be attributed to uncertainties regarding the learning curve and concerns regarding delaying treatment in STEMI if radial access fails. Methods: Using the data from the Coronary Angiography Database Of South Australia registry (CADOSA), we sought to determine the radial access failure rates for acute cases during transition from routine femoral access to routine radial access from 2012 to 2016, a period when the greatest transition in practice occurred. Data regarding initial vascular access, success or failure, and subsequent vascular access was prospectively recorded for all cases. Operators with at least a 70% rate of initial radial access were deemed to be established radial operators and acted as controls for operators transitioning from femoral access (at least 70% of cases) to radial access during the study period. Cases were further classified as elective, urgent (eg inpatient ACS) or emergency (eg STEMI). Results: There were 23 operators with sufficient volumes, responsible for 20,073 cath lab visits during the 5 year period studied. The overall radial access rate increased from 57% in 2012 to 78% in 2016. For operators transitioning from a default femoral access (76% of case) to a default radial access (75% of cases), the radial access failure rate for urgent and emergency cases was 3.7%, compared to 3.5% for experienced radial operators over the same period. Conclusion: Despite strong evidence of benefit for radial access angiography and intervention, compared to femoral access, some operators remain reluctant to transition. Utilising the CADOSA database, we observed a safe transition from femoral to radial access without an increased risk of access site failure for acute cases. Transition from femoral to radial access can be made safely by a range of clinicians managing acute cases.

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

Distal transradial access for coronary angiography and interventions in everyday practice: data from the TRIANGLE Registry

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.2453 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽

Author(s):

K Schenke ◽

A Viertel ◽

R Prog ◽

N Joghetaei ◽

T Matthiesen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Coronary Angiography ◽

Radial Artery ◽

Dorsal Side ◽

High Rate ◽

Puncture Site ◽

Total Occlusion ◽

Coronary Syndrome ◽

Radial Access ◽

Transradial Access ◽

Crossover Rate

Abstract Background Transradial access has become the primary route for coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Recently a new puncture site more distally on the dorsal side of the hand in the area of the anatomical snuffbox has been developed. Purpose With this multicenter registry, we wish to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the distal transradial access (dTRA) and assess the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO). As an exploratory endpoint, we compared peri-interventional data between right- and left-radial access and differences between the true anatomical snuffbox (SB) and the distal- dorsal (DD) puncture site. Methods Between December 2018 and May 2019 we included all patients into this registry with a planned CAG or PCI via dTRA in three cardiology centers in Germany. Procedural data, puncture success, crossover rate and complications were registered. We examined proximal and distal radial artery patency by ultrasound within 48 h after removal of compression device. Results A total of 327 patients were enrolled (mean age: 69 years, male: 69%), in 5 cases bilateral distal puncture was performed, puncture success was high (N=316/332, 95%) and the crossover rate was low (27/332, 8%). The rate of proximal (2/332) and distal (3/332) RAO was low. Major complications were not encountered. The comparison between SB and DD site and left- and right radial access showed no significant differences (see table). The indication for CAG in 50% of the population was acute coronary syndrome, including 28 patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (8.4%). Overall PCI rate was 48%. PCI cases did not demonstrate a crossover rate higher than in CAG. PCI on chronic total occlusion (CTO) was performed in 16 cases including bilateral dTRA. Conclusion Coronary angiography and interventions via dTRA can be performed with a high rate of success and safety. This data suggests a reduced rate of RAO compared to previous reported data after cannulation via the standard forearm radial artery puncture site. Randomized studies are needed to further investigate these results. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Download Full-text

Hospital results of endovascular treatment of patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) through distal radial access

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.2498 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽

Author(s):

A.G Koledinskiy ◽

Y.U.V Mikheeva ◽

P.P Ogurtsov ◽

D.S Kurtasov ◽

N.L Vyazova

Keyword(s):

Radial Artery ◽

Final Conclusion ◽

Cardiac Events ◽

Femoral Access ◽

Exact Test ◽

Radial Approach ◽

Coronary Syndrome ◽

Radial Access ◽

Adverse Cardiac Events ◽

Angiographic Data

Abstract Background Radial access is traditionally the first line method for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). However, it has its drawbacks. Recently a new distal radial approach (DRA) has been proposed. The results of using this method in patients with ACS are not defined. Aim of this study To evaluate the safety, efficacy and hospital outcomes ot treatment of patients with ACS using DRA during PCI as compared to traditional radial access (TRA). Materials and methods A single-center randomized trial included 264 people who underwent PCI in the period from November 2018 to May 2019 at our clinic. The proportion of patients with unstable angina was 60.6% (n=160), with acute myocardial infarction 39.4% (n=104). Patients were divided into 2 groups: in the 1st gr. (n=132) was used DRA, in the control 2nd gr. (n=132) - TRA. The studied groups were comparable according to the initial clinical and angiographic data. All interventions were performed by experienced endovascular cardiologists who perform more than 300 PCI per year. Statistical methods We used a program Statistica 6.0, v. 15, Pearson's criterion, Fisher's exact test, t-test. Results During PCI, 228 drug-coated stents were implanted in 104 patients. 10 patients had access conversion during PCI: from DRA to TRA in 3 patients, to femoral access - in 4 (the total number of conversions from DRA was 5.3%), from transradial to femoral in 3 people (2.3%), and therefore in the 1st group left 125 patients for observation, in the second - 129, respectively. The average puncture time was 125.1±11.9 sec. in the 1 gr. and 58.8±8.2 sec. in the 2 gr. (p≤0.00005). There was no difference in the total execution time of PCI: 30.5±7.1 min. in the 1 gr. and 29.4±4.6 min. in the 2 gr. (p≥0.1428). The duration of hemostasis was significantly higher in the TRA group: 354.2±28.1 min. against 125.4±15.3 min. in the 1 gr. (p≤0.00005). In the DRA group, there was a lower incidence of hematomas: in 1 patient (0.8%) versus 9 (7.0%) in the TRA group (p=0.019), radial artery spasm: in 7 patients (5.6%) versus 17 (13.2%) in the 2 gr. (p=0.039) and thrombosis at the access site: occlusion radial artery was observed only in 1 patient (0.8%) in the DRA group, while in the TRA group - in 8 (6.2%), p=0.036. The frequency of Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) in the studied groups at the hospital stage was similar: 2.4% of cases (n=3) in the 1st gr. and 2.3% (n=3) in the 2nd group (p=1.0). Conclusions Our one-center prospective study showed: The use of distal radial access does not extend the overall procedure time compared to transradial approach. The frequency of major complications is comparable in the two studied groups. We noted a significantly lower frequency of local complications when using DRA compared to TRA. So, distal radial approach may be an alternative to transradial access, however, large randomized trials are needed for a final conclusion. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Radial versus femoral access for elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary angiography and intervention: insights from the RIVAL trial.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.725918053.793537124 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Nanette Wenger ◽

Niels Engberding

Keyword(s):

Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽

Coronary Angiography ◽

Elderly Patients ◽

Femoral Access ◽

Coronary Syndrome

Download Full-text

P6371Endothelial functions are preserved in left distal radial access coronary angiography, a prospective comparison with right and left forearm radial artery access site

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehy566.p6371 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 39 (suppl_1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

E Skraqi ◽

M Kis ◽

M Akin

Keyword(s):

Coronary Angiography ◽

Radial Artery ◽

Left Forearm ◽

Access Site ◽

Radial Access ◽

Prospective Comparison

Download Full-text

Abstract 17406: Early Experience With Ultrasound Guided Distal Trans-Radial Access in the Anatomical Snuffbox in Coronary Angiography and Intervention

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circ.138.suppl_1.17406 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 138 (Suppl_1) ◽

Author(s):

Sangyeub Lee ◽

Woong-su Yoon ◽

Daehwan Bae ◽

Min Kim ◽

Sang Min Kim ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Coronary Angiography ◽

Success Rate ◽

Radial Artery ◽

Early Experience ◽

Coronary Intervention ◽

Ultra Sound ◽

Potential Candidate ◽

Ultrasound Guided ◽

Radial Approach ◽

Radial Access

Early experience with ultrasound guided distal trans-radial access in the anatomical snuffbox in coronary angiography and intervention. Objective: We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the ultrasound guided distal trans-radial coronary angiography and intervention. Methods: Patients assigned to one operator program underwent diagnostic or procedural intervention through distal trans-radial approach in the anatomical snuffbox between January 2018 and May 2018. All of patients had palpable artery in their distal radial artery. The operator did the coronary procedure via distal radial access at anatomical snuffbox. When the pulse was weak or the target artery was very small, the operator punctured under ultrasound guidance (V-scan with dual probe, GE heathcare, USA) Results: 56 patients were enrolled. Mean age of patients was 65.1 years old and 68% were male. About 70% of patients were presented with stable angina feature. In diagnostic procedure, 4F (3, 5.6%) or 5F (29, 54.7%) sheath was used and we did coronary intervention via 6F (21, 39.6%) Sheath. Ultrasound guided puncture was done for 33 patients (58.9%). Overall Success rate of distal trans-radial angiography and intervention was 94.6% (3 failed cases). Success rate of ultrasound guided procedure was 97% (only 1 failed case). Left distal radial puncture was done for 18 patients (33.9%). 16% of patients had chronic kidney disease, especially end stage renal disease (11%) to preserve radial artery which was potential candidate of arteriovenous fistulae for dialysis. There was no BARC type 2-5 bleeding in hospital stay and follow up at out-patient clinic. Conclusion: Ultra sound guided distal radial approach is feasible and safe as a good alternative technique for coronary angiography and interventions.

Download Full-text

P6523Radial artery occlusion: predictors, methods for reducing the frequency of complications-a single center study

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehz746.1113 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

D Ognerubov ◽

A Tereshchenko ◽

E Merkulov ◽

S Provatorov ◽

G Arutyunyan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diabetes Mellitus ◽

Coronary Angiography ◽

Radial Artery ◽

Stable Coronary Artery Disease ◽

Ulnar Artery ◽

Coronary Intervention ◽

Artery Occlusion ◽

Careful Examination ◽

Radial Access ◽

Short Time

Abstract Radial access has great advantages in terms of the frequency of complications, but it has one specific complication - radial artery occlusion (RAO). This complication often does not manifest itself in any way; however, it limits the use of access for the future interventions. Aim To compare methods of short and traditional hemostasis and to identify the main predictors of RAO after radial access. Materials and methods During the period from 2012 to 2018, 2000 patients were included in the study, which consisted of two parts: prospective - 1000 patients who underwent coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stable coronary artery disease, and retrospective part of the study, which included 1000 patients admitted for PCI from other clinics. In a prospective study, patients were divided into two groups: after coronary angiography and PCI, respectively (n=500 in the coronary angiography group and n=500 in the PCI group), and then randomized. Hemostatic bandages in the first group of patients (n=250) were removed after 12–24 hours, in the second group (n=250) - after 4±1 hours. When the occlusion of the radial artery was detected, all patients underwent an hour-long compression of the ipsilateral ulnar artery to recanalize acute RAO. Results The frequency of RAO in the retrospective part of the study was 21.8%. The frequency of RAO in the prospective part of the study was 10.2% with a traditional time hemostasis and 1.4% with a short-time compression (P<0.001). Predictors of the RAO are illustrated in table 1. Predictors of bleeding were PCI (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01–0.67, P=0.05) and weight (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.18, P=0.01). Table 1. Predictors of RAO Variables Odds ratio 95% Confidential interval Significance, P Traditional-time hemostasis 8.78 4.2–21.5 <0.001 Diabetes mellitus+smoking 18.1 12.7–26.7 <0.001 Diabetes mellitus 0.45 0.25–0.83 0.009 Body mass index 0.95 0.91–0.99 0.02 Male 1.75 1.01–3.18 0.05 Protein C 0,86 0,75–0,96 0,01 Conclusion Careful examination of the patient for detecting RAO before and after interventions is essential. Short hemostasis with compression of the ipsilateral ulnar artery reduce the frequency of RAO. For short-time hemostasis, special attention should be paid to patients after PCI and with low BMI, as far as these factors are associated with a greater risk of bleeding after removal of the compression bandage.

Download Full-text