Search

RESUMEN Introducción y objetivos: Actualmente, el acceso radial distal (ARD) para procedimientos coronarios es una alternativa al acceso radial convencional, con algunas ventajas descritas principalmente en términos de complicaciones relacionadas con el acceso. A pesar de la evidencia, pocos centros han establecido el ARD como acceso sistemático para procedimientos coronarios. El objetivo de esta cohorte prospectiva es presentar la experiencia inicial en nuestro centro con el ARD en pacientes con indicación de procedimientos coronarios en cualquier escenario clínico. Métodos: Se incluyeron 1.000 procedimientos de ARD (943 pacientes) realizados en un único centro de agosto de 2020 a noviembre de 2023. El estudio fue realizado con pacientes en cualquier escenario clínico. Se recomendó la valoración por ultrasonido del trayecto de la arteria radial antes y después del procedimiento, así como la punción ecoguiada. El objetivo principal fue el éxito del ARD. Como objetivos secundarios se consideraron el éxito del procedimiento coronario, el desempeño del ARD y las complicaciones relacionadas con el acceso. Resultados: El éxito del ARD fue del 97,4% (n = 974) y el éxito del procedimiento coronario fue del 96,9% (n = 969). El tiempo de acceso del ARD fue de 40 segundos [rango intercuartílico, 30-60]. Se realizaron procedimientos diagnósticos en el 64% (n = 644) e intervencionismo coronario percutáneo (ICP) en el 36% (n = 356), incluyendo ICP primario en el 13% (n = 128) de los pacientes. La valoración por ultrasonido antes del procedimiento se llevó a cabo en el 83% (n = 830) y la punción ecoguiada en el 85% (n = 848). La incidencia de complicaciones relacionadas con el acceso fue del 2,9% (n = 29). Conclusiones: Este estudio muestra la viabilidad y la seguridad del ARD principalmente guiado por ultrasonido para los procedimientos coronarios en cualquier escenario clínico, con un alto porcentaje de éxito del acceso y de éxito del procedimiento, además de una baja incidencia de complicaciones relacionadas con el acceso. El estudio fue registrado en ClinicalTrials.gov (NTC06165406).

ABSTRACT Introduction and objectives: Distal radial access (DRA) for coronary procedures is currently recognized as an alternative to conventional transradial access, with documented advantages primarily related to access-related complications. However, widespread adoption of DRA as the default approach remains limited. Therefore, this prospective cohort study aimed to present our initial experience with DRA for coronary procedures in any clinical settings. Methods: From August 2020 to November 2023, we included 1000 DRA procedures (943 patients) conducted at a single center. The study enrolled a diverse patient population. We recommended pre- and postprocedural ultrasound evaluations of the radial artery course, with ultrasound-guided DRA puncture. The primary endpoint was DRA success, while secondary endpoints included coronary procedure success, DRA performance metrics, and the incidence of access-related complications. Results: The DRA success rate was 97.4% (n = 974), with coronary procedure success at 96.9% (n = 969). The median DRA time was 40 [interquartile range, 30-60] seconds. Diagnostic procedures accounted for 64% (n = 644) of cases, while 36% (n = 356) involved percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including primary PCI in 13% (n = 128). Pre-procedure ultrasound evaluation and ultrasound-guided DRA were performed in 83% (n = 830) and 85% (n = 848) of cases, respectively. Access-related complications occurred in 2.9% (n = 29). Conclusions: This study shows the safety and feasibility of DRA for coronary procedures, particularly when performed under ultrasound guidance in a diverse patient population. High rates of successful access and coronary procedure outcomes were observed, together with a low incidence of access-related complications. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NTC06165406).

Introduction Among individuals ≥ 65 years old, aortic stenosis is highly prevalent and the number of cases is expected to increase in the coming decades, due to the increased life expectancy. Nevertheless, the actual aortic stenosis burden is not well known in population settings and the impact of aortic stenosis on quality of life has not been studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate aortic stenosis impact on health-related quality of life in patients > 65 years old. Methods An epidemiological case-control study was carried out to compare quality of life in patients ≥65 years old with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Demographical and clinical information was prospectively obtained and quality of life information was collected with the Short Form Health Survey_v2 (SF-12) questionnaire. The association between quality of life and aortic stenosis was determined using multiple logistic regression models. Results Patients with severe aortic stenosis self-perceived worse quality of life on all dimensions and summary components of the SF-12 questionnaire. In the final multiple logistic regression model a significant inverse association was observed between the dimensions ‘physical role’ and ‘social role’ (p = 0.002 and p = 0.005) and an association close to significance with ‘physical role’ (p = 0.052) of the SF-12 questionnaire. Conclusion The use of quality of life scales allows the assessment of the impact of aortic stenosis on quality of life and may improve the therapeutic approach to severe aortic stenosis, providing evidence for patient‐centered care.

Introduction. Distal radial access for coronary procedures decreases hemostasis time, prevents radial occlusion, and improves patient comfort compared to conventional transradial access. Initially described for left distal radial access (lDRA), the right distal radial access (rDRA) is feasible. However, there are no comparative studies to date. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the access site on vascular access and procedural performance. Methods. From August 2020 to October 2021, coronary procedures performed through distal radial access were prospectively recorded. After propensity score matching, the rDRA and lDRA were compared. The primary endpoint was the proportion of approach success. The secondary endpoints included access time, coronary procedural success, radial spasm, exposition to ionizing radiation, patient comfort, and vascular access-related complications. Results. From a total of 385 procedures in 382 patients, after a propensity score matching, 182 procedures were compared between the rDRA and lDRA. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Compared to the lDRA, the rDRA presented similar approach success (96.7% vs. 96.7%, p=1.0), less access time (39 (25–60) sec vs. 50 (29–90) sec, p=0.018), comparable coronary procedural success after sheath placement (100% vs. 100%, p=1.000), and not statistically significant radial spasm (2.19% vs. 6.59%, p=0.148). No differences in dose-area product (32 (20–56.2) Gy.m2 vs. 32.3 (19.4–46.3) Gy.m2; p=0.472) and fluoroscopy time (4.4 (2.5–9.1) min vs. 4.3 (2.4–7.5) min, p=0.251) were detected between the groups. No vascular access-related complications were observed in any group. Conclusions. The rDRA, compared to the lDRA, had the same proportion of approach success and procedural performance, with a slight reduction in access time for patients undergoing coronary procedures.

Abstract Background: Coronary angiography with two catheters is the traditional strategy for diagnostic coronary procedures. TIG I catheter permits to cannulate both coronary arteries, avoiding exchanging catheters during coronary angiography by transradial access. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of one-catheter strategy, by avoiding catheter exchange, on coronary catheterization performance and economic costs. Methods: Transradial coronary diagnostic procedures conducted from January 2013 to June 2017 were collected. One-catheter strategy (TIG I catheter) and two-catheter strategy (left and right Judkins catheters) were compared. The volume of iodinated contrast administered was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included radial spasm, procedural duration (fluoroscopy time) and exposure to ionizing radiation (dose-area product and air kerma). Direct economic costs were also evaluated. For statistical analyses, two-tailed p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: From a total of 1,953 procedures in 1,829 patients, 252 procedures were assigned to one-catheter strategy and 1,701 procedures to two-catheter strategy. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. One-catheter strategy required less iodinated contrast [primary endpoint; (60-105)-mL vs. 92 (64-120)-mL; p < 0.001] than the two-catheter strategy. Also, the one-catheter group presented less radial spasm (5.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.022) and shorter fluoroscopy time [3.9 (2.2-8.0)-min vs. 4.8 (2.9-8.3)-min, p = 0.001] and saved costs [149 (140-160)-€/procedure vs. 171 (160-183)-€/procedure; p < 0.001]. No differences in dose-area product and air kerma were detected between the groups. Conclusions: One-catheter strategy, with TIG I catheter, improves coronary catheterization performance and reduces economic costs compared to traditional two-catheter strategy in patients referred for coronary angiography.