Radial vs. Femoral Artery Access in Elderly Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Journal of Cardiology, 2016
Background: Trans-radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been associated with lower vascular complication rates and improved outcomes. We assessed the current uptake of trans-radial PCI in Victoria, Australia, and evaluated if patients were selected according to baseline bleeding risk in contemporary clinical practise, and compared selected clinical outcomes. Methods: PCI data of all patients between 1st January 2013 and 31st December 2014 were analysed using The Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR). Propensity-matched analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes. Results: 11,711 procedures were analysed. The femoral route was the predominant access site (66%). Patients undergoing trans-radial access PCI were younger (63.9 ± 11.6 vs. 67.2 ± 11.8; p b 0.001), had a higher BMI (28.9 ± 5.5 vs. 28.5 ± 5.2; p b 0.001), more likely to be male (80.0 vs. 74.9%;p b 0.001), less likely to have presented with cardiogenic shock (0.9 vs. 2.8%; p b 0.001) or have the following comorbidities: diabetes (19.8 vs. 23.1%; p b 0.001), peripheral vascular disease (2.9 vs. 4.3%; p = 0.005) or renal impairment (13.6 vs. 22.1%; p b 0.001). The radial group had less bleeding events (3.2 vs. 4.6%; p b 0.001) and shorter hospital length of stay (3.1 ± 4.7 vs. 3.3 ± 3.9; p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in mortality (1.0 vs. 1.4%; p = 0.095). Conclusions: Trans-femoral approach remains the dominant access site for PCI in Victoria. The choice of route does not appear to be selected by consideration of bleeding risk. The radial route is associated with improved clinical outcomes of reduced bleeding and length of stay consistent with previous findings, and this supports the efficacy and safety of trans-radial PCI in real-world clinical practise.
Circulation, 2013
Background— Radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (r-PCI) is associated with reduced vascular complications; however, previous reports have shown that <2% of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in the United States are performed via the radial approach. Our aims were to evaluate temporal trends in r-PCI and compare procedural outcomes between r-PCI and transfemoral PCI. Methods and Results— We conducted a retrospective cohort study from the CathPCI registry (n=2 820 874 procedures from 1381 sites) between January 2007 and September 2012. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the adjusted association between r-PCI and bleeding, vascular complications, and procedural success, using transfemoral PCI as the reference. Outcomes in high-risk subgroups such as age ≥75 years, women, and patients with acute coronary syndrome were also examined. The proportion of r-PCI procedures increased from 1.2% in quarter 1 2007 to 16.1% in quart...
Circulation, 2013
P ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has traditionally been performed using femoral arterial access. 1 Risks associated with transfemoral PCI (f-PCI) include access site bleeding and major vascular complications, which are associated with a risk of subsequent morbidity, mortality, and costs. 2 Alternative vascular access sites for PCI include the brachial, radial, and ulnar arteries. 3 Data from singlecenter and small randomized trials comparing transradial PCI (r-PCI) with the femoral approach suggested a lower rate of bleeding and vascular complications associated with r-PCI. 4 More recently, a large randomized trial of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing coronary angiography or intervention, demonstrated that both radial and femoral approaches were equally effective and safe, with a lower rate of vascular complications in the radial approach cohort. 5 In addition, the high-risk subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction had a reduction in cardiovascular events, driven by an apparent reduction in mortality in the r-PCI group. A subsequent meta-analysis of observational and randomized studies showed that r-PCI was associated with a 78% reduction in bleeding in comparison with f-PCI. 6 Despite this growing body of evidence, data from Background-Radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (r-PCI) is associated with reduced vascular complications; however, previous reports have shown that <2% of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in the United States are performed via the radial approach. Our aims were to evaluate temporal trends in r-PCI and compare procedural outcomes between r-PCI and transfemoral PCI. Methods and Results-We conducted a retrospective cohort study from the CathPCI registry (n=2 820 874 procedures from 1381 sites) between January 2007 and September 2012. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the adjusted association between r-PCI and bleeding, vascular complications, and procedural success, using transfemoral PCI as the reference. Outcomes in high-risk subgroups such as age ≥75 years, women, and patients with acute coronary syndrome were also examined. The proportion of r-PCI procedures increased from 1.2% in quarter 1 2007 to 16.1% in quarter 3 2012 and accounted for 6.3% of total procedures from 2007 to 2012 (n=178 643). After multivariable adjustment, r-PCI use in the studied cohort of patients was associated with lower risk of bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.54) and lower risk of vascular complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.50) in comparison with transfemoral PCI. The reduction in bleeding and vascular complications was consistent across important subgroups of age, sex, and clinical presentation. Conclusions-There has been increasing adoption of r-PCI in the United States. Transradial PCI now accounts for 1 of 6 PCIs performed in contemporary clinical practice. In comparison with traditional femoral access, transradial PCI is associated with lower vascular and bleeding complication rates.
Radial Approach for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials, 2012
The radial approach is considered alternative to the traditional femoral approach to perform coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Transradial compared to transfemoral PCI has been consistently shown to be equally effective but safer, since it significantly reduces access site related and bleeding complications. Additionally, it increases patient comfort and reduces hospitalization cost. Modern interventional strategies and aggressive antithrombotic regimens have limited ischemic adverse events following PCI. At the downside, bleeding complications remain a serious problem and adversely affect outcomes. They can be reduced with novel pharmacologic agents but still have unacceptably high rates and are mostly related to femoral access. In this context the radial approach seems a reasonable choice to further reduce access related bleeding. A concise overview of recent data supporting a more widespread dissemination of transradial PCI and a brief presentation of the most important pertinent technical issues are attempted herein.
European Heart Journal, 2022
Funding Acknowledgements: Type of funding sources: None. Introduction: Vascular access for coronary procedures is of paramount important not only for successful procedure but also to prevent complications. In comparison to femoral access, proximal radial artery (PRA) access at wrist is associated with decreased bleeding complications and mortality. The most important complication of PRA access is radial artery occlusion Use of the proximal radial artery (PRA) approach at wrist has several limitations: the need to supinate the hand, which can exacerbate chronic joint pain, the depth of the radial artery in large arms, which could make arterial puncture challenging even under ultrasound guidance, the risk of sporadic bleeding in the forearm, and the risk of radial artery occlusion. All above limitations can be overcome by distal radial artery (DRA) access in anatomical snuff box. Randomized Studies are lacking for the comparison between DRA and PRA approach in coronary procedures. Aims and objective: To compare safety, efficacy and feasibility between PRA and DRA approach in randomized fashion. Material and methods: This was single center randomized controlled trial. 320 patients were randomized in PRA and DRA groups. PRA approach was in wrist and DRA approach was in anatomical snuff box. Primary endpoint was cannulation failure (failure to achieve radial access) and transradial failure (failure to complete procedure after successful access). Secondary safety outcome includes major (compartment syndrome, need for vascular surgery, hand dysfunction, nerve palsy ,arteriovenous fistula, hematoma requiring blood transfusion, proximal radial artery occlusion) and minor (radial artery spasm, hematoma not requiring transfusion or causing compartment syndrome, ecchymosis, local edema, paresthesia, pseudoaneurysm) complications; secondary efficacy outcome were puncture attempts, cannulation time, procedure time, radiation dose, hemostasis time and quality of life endpoint was pain score. Results: Each group was having 160 patients. In DRA group 73.9 % were CAG and 26.1 % were PCI; in PRA group and 75.7 were CAG and 24.3 were PCI. Cannulation failure was more in DRA group (7.5 % vs 2.5 %, P < 0.001) without difference in transradial failure (n = 3 vs 4, p =0.764). There were no major complications in both groups except PRAO which was significantly less in DRA group (0 % vs 5.2 %, p= 0.007). Puncture attempts, cannulation time, pain score were more in DRA (1.65 vs 1.29, P < 0.001;3.23 vs 2.62 minutes, p < 0.001;25.5 vs 21.6 minutes, p = 0.039 respectively). There was no significant difference for minor complications in both groups. Conclusion: DRA approach is as safe and feasible as PRA approach and causes significantly less PRAO. DRA approach may be advocated as default approach where radial access is chosen for coronary procedures.
Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures
Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2004
We sought to compare, through a meta-analytic process, the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary procedures in terms of clinical and procedural outcomes. BACKGROUND The radial approach has been increasingly used as an alternative to femoral access. Several trials have compared these two approaches, with inconclusive results.
OBJECTIVES We sought to compare, through a meta-analytic process, the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary procedures in terms of clinical and procedural outcomes. BACKGROUND The radial approach has been increasingly used as an alternative to femoral access. Several trials have compared these two approaches, with inconclusive results. METHODS The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and conference proceedings from major cardiologic associations were searched. Random-effect odds ratios (ORs) for failure of the procedure (crossover to different entry site or impossibility to perform the planned procedure), entry site complications (major hematoma, vascular surgery, or arteriovenous fistula), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, emergency revascu-larization, or stroke, were computed. RESULTS Twelve randomized trials (n 3,224) were included in the analysis. The risk of MACE was similar for the radial versus femoral approach (OR 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 1.48; p 0.7). Instead, radial access was associated with a significantly lower rate of entry site complications (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42; p 0.0001), even if at the price of a higher rate of procedural failure (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.63 to 6.71; p 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The radial approach for coronary procedures appears as a safe alternative to femoral access. Moreover, radial access virtually eliminates local vascular complications, thanks to a time-sparing hemostasis technique. However, gaining radial access requires higher technical skills, thus yielding an overall lower success rate. Nonetheless, a clear ongoing trend toward equalization of the two procedures, in terms of procedural success, is evident through the years, probably due to technologic progress of materials and increased operator experience. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:349-56)
Distal Radial Artery Access for Coronary and Peripheral Procedures: A Multicenter Experience
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Introduction: Distal radial access (dRA) has recently gained global popularity as an alternative access route for vascular procedures. Among the benefits of dRA are the low risk of entry site bleeding complications, the low rate of radial artery occlusion, and improved patient and operator comfort. The aim of this large multicenter registry was to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of dRA in a wide variety of routine procedures in the catheterization laboratory, ranging from coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention to peripheral procedures. Methods: The study comprised 1240 patients who underwent coronary angiography, PCI or noncoronary procedures through dRA in two Hungarian centers from January 2019 to April 2021. Baseline patient characteristics, number and duration of arterial punctures, procedural success rate, crossover rate, postoperative compression time, complications, hospitalization duration, and different learning curves were analyzed. Results: The...