Search

In contrast to traditional femoral artery access, radial artery access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with reduced mortality and bleeding but has higher crossover rates. Therefore, factors associated with crossover warrant exploration as crossover due to technical challenges associated with the radial route may be mitigated.The objective of this study was to identify predictors of radial access failure or crossover to femoral access in PPCI.A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Systematic Reviews Checklist with searches conducted in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases. Inclusion criteria for this study included patients with STEMI; PPCI; and primary research identifying predictors of radial access failures and/or crossovers, published in English, and after 2010. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020167122). Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 26.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) and RevMan version 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) with meta-analysis conducted by using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects method. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was utilised for quality and risk of bias assessment, with EndNote software used for citations.Eight observational studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 12,621 patients. Risk of bias of these studies was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. The mean age was 61.2 ± 12.0 years, and 75.3% were male. Crossover from transradial to transfemoral artery occurred in 529 (4.2%) patients. Reasons for radial access failure included failed puncture (35.3%), peripheral occlusion or tortuosity (24.5%), and radial artery spasm (20.1%). Predictors of crossover included older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-2.65; p 0.001), female sex (OR, 2.10; 95% Cl, 1.58-2.80; p 0.001), weight ≤65 kg (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.95-4.46; p 0.001), and previous percutaneous coronary intervention (OR, 2.80; 95% Cl, 1.74-4.52; p 0.001).Older age, female sex, weight ≤65 kg, and previous percutaneous coronary intervention were predictors of crossover or failure from the radial to femoral artery. As these predictors are known to be associated with high bleeding and mortality, they should not preclude attempting a radial-first approach in all patients with STEMI. However, as these results were unadjusted, this study warrants further research to thoroughly investigate predictors of radial artery crossover.

Background With the increasing complexity of procedures being performed in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory, the multidisciplinary team has the challenge of providing safe care to patients who present with a multitude of healthcare needs. Although the use of a surgical safety checklist has become standard practice in operating theatres worldwide, the use of a pre-procedure checklist has not been routinely adopted into interventional cardiology. Objective The aim of this study was to design and evaluate a pre-procedure checklist specific to the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Method A descriptive, exploratory design was used to develop a specifically designed pre-procedure checklist for use in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory in a private hospital in Melbourne, Australia. The pre-procedure checklist was developed by exploring the multidisciplinary team's opinion regarding the organisation's previous surgical pre-procedure checklist through a pre-implementation survey and focus groups. Following an expert review, and implementation of the proposed pre-procedure checklist, a post-implementation survey was completed. Results Thirty-five (70%) cardiac catheterisation laboratory healthcare professionals completed the pre-implementation survey, with 31 (62%) completing the post-implementation survey. Ninety-one per cent of participants agreed that important clinical information required for interventional procedures was not documented on the previous surgical checklist. A specific checklist was developed from the results of the survey and six focus groups (N = 25) and implemented in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. In the post-implementation survey, participants identified that the cardiac catheterisation laboratory specific pre-procedure checklist included all relevant clinical information and improved documentation of patient information. Conclusion The development of a specific cardiac catheterisation laboratory pre-procedure checklist has led to an improved transfer of pertinent clinical information required prior to procedures being performed in the unit. The outcome of this study has implications for other cardiac catheterisation laboratories with the potential to standardise practice within interventional cardiology practice and improve patient safety outcomes.

Background Radial access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with reduced mortality and bleeding, when compared to femoral access. However, radial access failure may be associated with an increased door-to-device (DTD) time. Aims To identify predictors of radial access failure requiring crossover to femoral artery access during primary PCI. Methods From 2013 to 2020, 2,256 consecutive patients treated for PPCI at a single tertiary hospital were prospectively recruited into the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry and followed for 30 days. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of radial to femoral access crossover. Results From 2,256 STEMI patients, primary radial access was used in 1,778 (78.8%), with 171 (9.6%) experiencing radial-to-femoral crossover. Patients with failed versus successful radial access experienced longer DTD times (67 mins, interquartile range [IQR] 46–99 vs 54 mins [IQR 39-78]; p

Background Although approximately half of adults with heart failure (HF) are women, relatively little is known about gender differences and similarities in HF self-care. Aims The aim of this study was to describe HF self-care in men and women and to identify gender-specific barriers and facilitators influencing HF self-care. Methods A total of 27 adults (8 women) with chronic HF participated in a cross-sectional, comparative mixed methods study. An analysis of in-depth interviews was used to describe gender-specific barriers and facilitators of self-care. After the interview data were analyzed, the results were confirmed in quantitative data obtained from the same sample and at the same time. Concordance between qualitative and quantitative data was assessed. Results There were no consistent gender-specific differences in self-care practices but there were distinct gender differences in the decisions made in interpreting and responding to symptoms. The men were better than the women at interpreting their symptoms as being related to HF and in initiating treatment. These differences were associated with differences in self-care confidence, social support, and mood. Conclusion Gender-specific differences in self-care behaviors are minimal. However, gender-specific barriers and facilitators greatly influence the choice of self-care behaviors.