Search

Cardiac catheterization procedures have rapidly evolved and expanded in scope and techniques over the past few decades. However, although some practices have emerged based on evidence, many traditions have persisted based on beliefs and theoretical concerns. The aim of this review is to highlight common preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure catheterization laboratory practices where evidence has accumulated over the past few decades to support or discount traditionally held practices.

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing cardiac catheterization face risks for embolic and bleeding events, yet information on strategies to mitigate these risks in contemporary practice is lacking., Methods: We aimed to describe the clinical/procedural characteristics of a contemporary cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation on OAC who underwent cardiac catheterization. Use of bleeding avoidance strategies and bridging therapy were described and outcomes including death, stroke, and major bleeding at 30 days and 1 year were compared by OAC type., Results: Of 13 404 patients in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II Registry from 2013 to 2016, 741 underwent cardiac catheterization (139 with percutaneous coronary intervention) in the setting of OAC. The patients' median age was 71, 61.8% were male, white (87.2%), had hypertension (83.7%), hyperlipidemia (72.1%), diabetes mellitus (31.6%), and chronic kidney disease (28.2%); 20.2% received warfarin while 79.8% received direct acting oral anticoagulant. One third of patients underwent radial artery access, and bivalirudin was used in 4.6%. Bridging therapy was used more often in patients on warfarin versus direct acting oral anticoagulant (16.7% versus10.0%). OAC was interrupted in 93.8% of patients. Patients on warfarin versus direct acting oral anticoagulant were equally likely to restart OAC (58.0% versus 60.7%), had similar use of antiplatelet therapy (44.0% versus 41.3%) after catheterization, and had similar rates of myocardial infarction and death at 1 year, but higher rates of major bleeding (43.3 versus 12.9 events/100 patient years) and stroke (4.9 versus 1.9 events/100 patient years)., Conclusions: In a real-world registry of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac catheterization, most cases are elective, performed by femoral access, with interruption of OAC. Bleeding avoidance strategies such as radial artery access and bivalirudin were used infrequently and use of bridging therapy was uncommon. Nearly 40% of patients did not restart OAC postprocedure, exposing patients to risk for stroke. Further research is necessary to optimize the management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac catheterization.

Transradial angiography and intervention continues to become increasingly common as an access site for coronary procedures. Since the first "Best Practices" paper in 2013, ongoing trials have shed further light onto the safest and most efficient methods to perform these procedures. Specifically, this document comments on the use of ultrasound to facilitate radial access, the role of ulnar artery access, the utility of non-invasive testing of collateral flow, strategies to prevent radial artery occlusion, radial access for primary PCI and topics that require further study., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: Investigation of novel vertical radiation shield (VRS) in reducing operator radiation exposure., Background: Radiation exposure to the operator remains an occupational health hazard in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL)., Methods: A mannequin simulating an operator was placed near a computational phantom, simulating a patient. Measurement of dose equivalent and Air Kerma located the angle with the highest radiation, followed by a common magnification (8 in.) and comparison of horizontal radiation absorbing pads (HRAP) with or without VRS with two different: CCL, phantoms, and dosimeters. Physician exposure was subsequently measured prospectively with or without VRS during clinical procedures., Results: Dose equivalent and Air Kerma to the mannequin was highest at left anterior oblique (LAO)-caudal angle (p < .005). Eight-inch magnification increased mGray by 86.5% and μSv/min by 12.2% compared to 10-in. (p < .005). Moving 40 cm from the access site lowered μSv/min by 30% (p < .005). With LAO-caudal angle and 8-in. magnification, VRS reduced μSv/min by 59%, (p < .005) in one CCL and μSv by 100% (p = .016) in second CCL in addition to HRAP. Prospective study of 177 procedures with HRAP, found VRS lowered μSv by 41.9% (μSv: 15.2 ± 13.4 vs. 26.2 ± 31.4, p = .001) with no difference in mGray. The difference was significant after multivariate adjustment for specified variables (p < .001)., Conclusions: Operator radiation exposure is significantly reduced utilizing a novel VRS, HRAP, and distance from the X-ray tube, and consideration of lower magnification and avoiding LAO-caudal angles to lower radiation for both operator and patient., (© 2019 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: This study evaluated whether use of different spasmolytic regimens (nitroglycerin or verapamil) administered soon after sheath insertion affects postprocedure radial artery occlusion (RAO) in patients who underwent transradial catheterization., Methods and Results: We performed a post hoc analysis of a randomized trial evaluating the use of 500 μg intra-arterial nitroglycerin just before sheath removal in 1706 patients undergoing transradial catheterization. Patients who received 200 μg or 300 μg nitroglycerin after sheath placement (group A; n = 688) were compared with patients who received 5 mg verapamil after sheath placement (group B; n = 1018). The primary endpoint was RAO diagnosed by Doppler ultrasound examination at 1 calendar day after the procedure. Logistic regression was used to determine predictors of RAO. RAO occurred in 16.0% of group A and 5.4% of group B. After adjustment for potential confounders, neither the use of verapamil nor nitroglycerin was associated with RAO (odds ratio [OR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-3.02; P=.62). Radial artery compression >4 hours was the strongest predictor of RAO (OR, 5.41; 95% CI, 2.31-12.65; P<.001)., Conclusions: In this study, the use of verapamil or nitroglycerin as a spasmolytic regimen was not associated with RAO. Given the strong association between duration of radial compression and RAO, further studies are needed to determine the interaction between vasodilator agents and compression protocols on RAO.

The present-day cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) is home to varied practitioners who perform both diagnostic, interventional, and complex invasive procedures. Invasive, non-interventional cardiologists are performing a significant proportion of the work as the CCL environment has evolved. This not only includes those who perform diagnostic-only cardiac catheterization but also heart failure specialists who may be involved in hemodynamic assessment and in mechanical circulatory support and pulmonary hypertension specialists and transplant cardiologists. As such, the training background of those who work in the CCL is varied. While most quality metrics in the CCL are directed towards evaluation of patients who undergo traditional interventional procedures, there has not been a focus upon providing these invasive, noninterventional cardiologists, hospital/CCL administrators, and CCL directors a platform for quality metrics. This document focuses on benchmarking quality for the invasive, noninterventional practice, providing this physician community with guidance towards a patient-centered approach to care, and offering tools to the invasive, noninterventionalists to help their professional growth. This consensus statement aims to establish a foundation upon which the invasive, noninterventional cardiologists can thrive in the CCL environment and work collaboratively with their interventional colleagues while ensuring that the highest quality of care is being delivered to all patients., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: We aimed to describe global practice patterns of unfractionated heparin (UFH) use for diagnostic transradial cardiac catheterization., Background: The use of the radial artery approach for cardiac catheterization is increasing globally. Limited contemporary data exist to support the use or optimal dosing of UFH to prevent radial artery occlusion (RAO) and other thromboembolic complications., Methods: We performed a web-based international survey of 450 interventional cardiologists from 34 countries. We collected information regarding the experience and use of UFH for diagnostic transradial cardiac catheterization., Results: The survey was conducted between June and July 2016 and was completed by 227 (50.4%) interventional cardiologists. Overall, 83.3% performed >75% of their coronary angiograms via a radial approach, with the plurality (41.9%) having 10-20 years of clinical experience. Of all respondents, 7.5% did not use UFH for routine diagnostic transradial heart catheterization. Of the 92.5% who did use UFH, it was preferentially administered intra-arterially by 60% and intravenously by 40%. The majority (62.6%) of interventionalists used a fixed UFH dose with 5,000 IU being the most common dose (used in 48%). For those using a weight-based UFH (50 IU/kg) dosing regimen for diagnostic procedures (36.1%), the administered UFH dose ranged from 2,000 up to 10,000 IU., Conclusions: Despite the lack of firm evidence, the majority of interventional cardiologists who participated in the survey use UFH to prevent RAO for diagnostic transradial coronary angiography. However, there exist large practice disparities with regards to dose and route of administration. Given this knowledge gap, a dedicated randomized trial is warranted., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the current practice and use of transfemoral approach (TFA) for coronary angiography and intervention., Background: Wide variability exists in TFA techniques for coronary procedures., Methods: The authors developed a survey instrument that was distributed via e-mail lists from professional societies to interventional cardiologists from 88 countries between March and December 2016., Results: Of 987 operators, 18% were femoralists, 38% radialists, 42% both, and 2% neither. Access using femoral pulse palpation alone was preferred by 60% of operators, fluoroscopy guidance by 11%, and a combination of palpation, fluoroscopy, or ultrasound by 27%. Only 11% used micropuncture in >90% of their cases. Performing femoral angiography immediately after access was preferred by 23% and at the end of the procedure by 47%, and not done at all by 31% of operators. Hemostasis by manual compression was preferred by 50%, collagen plug vascular closure device by 31%, and suture-based vascular closure device by 11% of operators. Judkins left and right catheters were preferred for diagnostic angiography of the left (99%) and right (94%) coronary arteries. Extra backup curves (XB or EBU) were most commonly preferred for percutaneous coronary intervention of the left anterior descending (80%) and left circumflex (80%), whereas the Judkins right catheter was preferred for percutaneous coronary intervention of the right coronary artery (86%)., Conclusions: There is significant variability in preferences for femoral access technique. Even though recommended best practices advocate for fluoroscopic and ultrasound guidance, most operators use palpation alone. Femoral angiography is also not consistently used despite guideline recommendations. The lack of adoption of imaging guidance for vascular access deserves further investigation., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Morbidity and mortality conference is a common educational and quality improvement activity performed in cardiac catheterization laboratories, but best practices for case selection and for maximizing the effectiveness of peer review have not been determined., Methods and Results: We reviewed the 10-year percutaneous coronary intervention morbidity and mortality conference experience of an academic medical center. Cases were triggered for review by the occurrence of prespecified procedural events. Summary reports from morbidity and mortality conference discussions were linked to clinical data from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease to compare baseline and procedural characteristics and to assess postdischarge outcomes. Of 11 786 procedures, from 2004 to 2013, 157 (1.3%) were triggered for review. The most frequent triggering events were cardioversion/defibrillation (72, 0.6%), unplanned use of mechanical circulatory support (64, 0.5%), and major dissection (41, 0.3%). Selected procedures were more likely to include high-risk features, such as ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and multivessel disease, and were associated with higher mortality at 30 days. Only a minority of triggering events were caused by controversial or unacceptable physician behavior., Conclusions: This 10-year experience outlines the processes for conduct of an effective percutaneous coronary intervention morbidity and mortality conference, including a novel approach to case selection and structured peer review leading to actionable quality interventions. The prespecified clinical triggers, captured in the natural workflow by laboratory staff, identified complex cases that were associated with poor patient outcomes., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk for bleeding, transfusion, and dialysis after cardiac catheterization. Whether rates of these complications are increased in this high-risk population undergoing transradial access compared with transfemoral access is unknown., Methods and Results: From the Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking program, we identified 229 108 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization between 2007 and 2014, of which 48 155 (21.0%) had baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between 15 and 59 mL/min. We used multivariable Cox modeling to determine the independent association between transradial access and postprocedure transfusion as well as progression to new dialysis by degree of renal dysfunction. Overall, 35 979 (15.7%) of patients underwent Transradial access. Transradial patients tended to be slightly younger, but, overall, had similar rates of CKD compared to transfemoral patients (24.3% vs 27.1%). Transradial patients had longer fluoroscopy times (7.2 vs 6.0 minutes; P <0.001), but lower contrast use (85.0 vs 100.0 mL; P <0.001). The estimated rate of blood transfusion within 48 hours was lower among transradial patients (0.85% vs 1.01%) as were rates of new dialysis at 1 year (0.58% vs 0.71%). After multivariable adjustment, transradial access was associated with lower rates of progression to dialysis at 1 year overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98), with no trend of increased risk for dialysis by degree of CKD compared with transfemoral access. Transradial access was associated with greater reduction in transfusion rates with increasing degree of CKD ( P value for trend=0.04: non-CKD: HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73-1.34; GFR 45-59 mL/min: HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.70-1.23; GFR 30-44 mL/min: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51-1.03; GFR 15-29 mL/min: HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.90)., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in the VA health system, transradial access was associated with lower risk for postprocedure transfusion within 48 hours among patients with more-severe CKD, and with lower risk of progression to end-stage renal disease at 1 year compared with transfemoral access. These data provide additional evidence that transradial access may provide significant benefit in this high-risk population., (© 2017 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Objectives: Periprocedural bleedings, often related to vascular access site, represent an important drawback of percutaneous coronary procedures and are associated with worse outcomes. Radial access (RA) and, potentially, femoral access (FA) with vascular closure device (VCD) are useful strategies in order to mitigate periprocedural bleedings; nevertheless, their relative efficacy is largely undetermined. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of available studies comparing the efficacy of RA and FA with hemostasis by VCD (FA + VCD) on the reduction of access-site complications and/or periprocedural bleedings., Methods: Published studies reporting outcomes on access-site complications and periprocedural bleedings were included in the analysis. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by random-effects model and were used as summary statistics., Results: We included in the analysis 13 studies, of which 5 were randomized. Access-site complications were reported by 11 studies, amounting to 157,031 patients (77,713 in the RA group and 79,318 in the FA + VCD group), whereas periprocedural bleedings were reported by 12 studies, amounting to 600,196 patients (137,277 in the RA group and 462,919 in the FA + VCD group). RA was associated with a significant reduction in access-site complications (OR, 0.25; 95% CI ,0.21-0.31; P<.001) and periprocedural bleedings (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34-0.48; P<.001) as compared with FA + VCD; the results were consistent among randomized and observational studies., Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that RA is superior to FA + VCD in the reduction of access-site complications and periprocedural bleedings.

Arterial access and haemostasis are fundamental aspects of procedures performed in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The first description of arterial access for cardiac catheterization was in 1948, when surgical cut-down was used to access the radial artery. Over the next 2 decades, the preferred arteriotomy method transitioned from the Sones approach of brachial artery cut-down to the Seldinger and Judkins technique of percutaneous femoral artery access. Compared with the femoral approach, percutaneous transradial access results in reduced access-site bleeding, faster time to ambulation, and greater patient comfort. Several large-scale, randomized trials have also reported a survival advantage in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with radial compared with femoral access. However, inconsistencies exist between the completed trials, and the underlying mechanism of a reduction in mortality with radial access is uncertain. Femoral artery haemostasis can be achieved with either manual compression or vascular closure devices, with recent studies suggesting improved outcomes with the use of active closure systems. Radial artery haemostasis is achieved through the use of wristbands that mimic manual compression, and 'non-occlusive' haemostasis reduces the risk of radial artery occlusion. Newer arterial access routes and closure approaches for large-bore devices are being actively investigated. Expertise in both femoral and radial artery access and intervention is essential for contemporary interventional cardiologists.

This article discusses the controversies surrounding the use of transradial versus transfemoral approaches in the management of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, beginning with a review of the benefits of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this population. The unanswered questions about the mechanism underlying the mortality benefit of transradial PCI are discussed, concluding with recommendations for safe and effective strategies for adoption of the transradial approach to optimize outcomes in these high-risk patients., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative appraisal of the effects on clinical outcomes of radial access for coronary interventions in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD)., Background: Randomized trials investigating radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary interventions have provided conflicting evidence. No comprehensive quantitative appraisal of the risks and benefits of each approach is available across the whole spectrum of patients with stable or unstable CAD., Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effects or a random-effects model, as appropriate. Pre-specified subgroup analyses according to clinical presentation, in terms of stable CAD, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were performed., Results: Twenty-four studies enrolling 22,843 participants were included. Compared with femoral access, radial access was associated with a significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.87; p = 0.001, number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] = 160), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.94; p = 0.002; NNTB = 99), major bleeding (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.65; p < 0.001; NNTB = 103), and major vascular complications (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.35; p < 0.001; NNTB = 117). The rates of myocardial infarction or stroke were similar in the 2 groups. Effects of radial access were consistent across the whole spectrum of patients with CAD for all appraised endpoints., Conclusions: Compared with femoral access, radial access reduces mortality and MACE and improves safety, with reductions in major bleeding and vascular complications across the whole spectrum of patients with CAD., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Many patients undergo cardiac catheterization and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before noncardiac surgery even though these procedures are not routinely indicated. Data on this cohort of patients are limited., Objective: To describe the characteristics, angiographic findings, and treatment patterns of clinically stable patients undergoing cardiac catheterization and/or PCI before noncardiac surgery in a large national registry., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a retrospective, descriptive analysis of National Cardiac Data Registry CathPCI Registry diagnostic catheterization and PCI data from July 1, 2009, through December 31, 2014. Data analysis was performed from April 21, 2015, to January 4, 2016. The study included 194 444 patients from 1046 sites who underwent coronary angiography before noncardiac surgery. Patients with acute coronary syndrome, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, or emergency catheterization were excluded., Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic characteristics, preprocedure noninvasive testing results, angiographic findings, and treatment recommendations are summarized. Among the 27 838 patients who underwent PCI, procedural details, inpatient outcomes, and discharge medications are reported., Results: Of the 194 444 included patients, 113 590 (58.4%) were male, the median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 57-73 years), and 162 532 (83.6%) were white. Most were overweight or obese (152 849 [78.6%]), and 78 847 (40.6%) had diabetes mellitus. Most patients were asymptomatic (117 821 [60.6%]), although 112 302 (57.8%) had been taking antianginal medications within 2 weeks of the procedure. Prior noninvasive stress testing was reported in 126 766 (65.2%), and results were positive in 109 458 (86.3%) of those with stress data. Obstructive disease was present in 93 447 (48.1%). After diagnostic angiography, revascularization with PCI or bypass surgery was recommended in 46 380 patients (23.8%) in the overall cohort, 27 191 asymptomatic patients (23.1%), and 45 083 patients with obstructive disease (48.3%). In the 27 191 patients undergoing PCI, 367 treated lesions (1.3%) were in the left main artery and 3831 (13.8%) in the proximal left anterior descending artery. A total of 11 366 patients (40.8%) received drug-eluting stents. Complications occurred in a few patients, with a catheterization-related mortality rate of 0.05%., Conclusions and Relevance: In the largest contemporary US cohort reported to date, most patients undergoing diagnostic catheterization before noncardiac surgery are asymptomatic. The discovery of obstructive coronary artery disease is common, and although randomized clinical trials have found no benefit in outcomes, revascularization is recommended in nearly half of these patients. The overall findings highlight management patterns in this population and the need for greater evidence-based guidelines and practices.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore whether the use of bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) explains variability in hospital-level bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention., Background: Prior studies have reported that bleeding rates following percutaneous coronary intervention vary markedly among hospitals, but the extent to which use of BAS explains this variation is unknown., Methods: Using the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry's CathPCI Registry, estimated hospital-level bleeding rates from 2,459,686 procedures at 1,358 sites were determined. A series of models were fit to estimate random-effect variance, adjusting for patient risk (using the validated CathPCI bleeding risk model, C statistic = 0.77) and various combinations of BAS (transradial access, bivalirudin, vascular closure device use). The rate of any BAS use was also estimated for each hospital, and the association between percentage BAS use and predicted bleeding rates was determined., Results: In total, 125,361 bleeding events (5.1%) were observed; patients experiencing bleeding events had lower rates of radial access (5.0% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001), bivalirudin therapy (43.8% vs. 59.4%), and vascular closure device use (32.9% vs. 42.4%, p < 0.001) than those without bleeding. There was significant variation in bleeding rates across hospitals (median 5.0%; interquartile range [IQR]: 2.7% to 6.6%), which persisted after incorporating patient-level risk (median 5.1%; IQR: 4.0% to 4.4%). Patient factors accounted for 20% of the overall hospital-level variation, and radial access plus bivalirudin use accounted for an additional 7.8% of the overall hospital-level variation. The median hospital rate of any BAS use was 86.6% (IQR: 72.5% to 94.1%). A significant decrease in observed hospital-level bleeding was seen in hospitals above the median in BAS use (adjusted odds ratio: 0.90; 95% confidence interval: 0.88 to 0.93)., Conclusions: A modest proportion of the variation in hospitals' rates of bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention is attributable to differential use of BAS. Further analyses are required to determine the remaining approximately 70% causes of variation in percutaneous coronary intervention bleeding seen among hospitals., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We analyzed the effect of nitroglycerin on radial artery occlusion (RAO) in women undergoing transradial catheterization., Methods: A total of 1706 patients undergoing transradial catheterization were randomized to receive either 500μg intra-arterial nitroglycerin or placebo at the end of the radial procedure. We explored the gender-based analysis between women (n=539) and men (n=1167). The primary outcome was the incidence of RAO as confirmed by absence of antegrade flow at one day after the transradial procedure evaluated by duplex ultrasound of the radial artery., Results: The use of nitroglycerin, as compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the risk of RAO in women patients [odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38 to 1.26; P=0.147]. The risk of RAO was higher in women age <60years as compared with women age ≥60years [5.6% vs. 3.5%; odds ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.18 to 3.94; P=0.008]. In women age <60years (n=237), both counter puncture technique and a duration of hemostasis ≥4h were associated with a similar enhanced risk of developing RAO (odds ratio, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.59 to 7.72; P<0.001)., Conclusions: The administration of nitroglycerin at the end of a transradial catheterization in women did not reduce the risk of RAO as determined by ultrasound one day after the radial procedure. Age <60years was associated with a higher risk of RAO compared with age ≥60years in women. Further strategies to reduce RAO in women are needed., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transradial access for cardiac catheterisation results in lower bleeding and vascular complications than the traditional transfemoral access route. However, the increased radiation exposure potentially associated with transradial access is a possible drawback of this method. Whether transradial access is associated with a clinically significant increase in radiation exposure that outweighs its benefits is unclear. Our aim was therefore to compare radiation exposure between transradial access and transfemoral access for diagnostic coronary angiograms and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI)., Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the scientific literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases with relevant terms, and cross-referencing relevant articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared radiation parameters in relation to access site, published from Jan 1, 1989, to June 3, 2014. Three investigators independently sorted the potentially relevant studies, and two others extracted data. We focused on the primary radiation outcomes of fluoroscopy time and kerma-area product, and used meta-regression to assess the changes over time. Secondary outcomes were operator radiation exposure and procedural time. We used both fixed-effects and random-effects models with inverse variance weighting for the main analyses, and we did confirmatory analyses for observational studies., Findings: Of 1252 records identified, we obtained data from 24 published RCTs for 19 328 patients. Our primary analyses showed that transradial access was associated with a small but significant increase in fluoroscopy time for diagnostic coronary angiograms (weighted mean difference [WMD], fixed effect: 1·04 min, 95% CI 0·84-1·24; p<0·0001) and PCI (1·15 min, 95% CI 0·96-1·33; p<0·0001), compared with transfemoral access. Transradial access was also associated with higher kerma-area product for diagnostic coronary angiograms (WMD, fixed effect: 1·72 Gy·cm(2), 95% CI -0·10 to 3·55; p=0·06), and significantly higher kerma-area product for PCI (0·55 Gy·cm(2), 95% CI 0·08-1·02; p=0·02). Mean operator radiation doses for PCI with basic protection were 107 μSv (SD 110) with transradial access and 74 μSv (68) with transfemoral access; with supplementary protection, the doses decreased to 21 μSv (17) with transradial access and 46 μSv (9) with transfemoral. Meta-regression analysis showed that the overall difference in fluoroscopy time between the two procedures has decreased significantly by 75% over the past 20 years from 2 min in 1996 to about 30 s in 2014 (p<0·0001). In observational studies, differences and effect sizes remained consistent with RCTs., Interpretation: Transradial access was associated with a small but significant increase in radiation exposure in both diagnostic and interventional procedures compared with transfemoral access. Since differences in radiation exposure narrow over time, the clinical significance of this small increase is uncertain and is unlikely to outweigh the clinical benefits of transradial access., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Over the past several years, the transradial approach (TRA) for cardiac catheterization has become increasingly adopted in the United States. The increased utilization of the TRA is grounded on 2 decades of research, showing reduced bleeding and vascular complications to complement improved patient quality of life. However, the concern over cost, radiation exposure, and acknowledged "learning curve" has kept the transfemoral approach (TFA) the mainstay of most US catheterization laboratories. More recent larger multi-centered randomized studies have aimed to address outcomes and these concerns between the TR and TF approaches. This article will review the changing trends in TRA in the US, discuss clinical (bleeding and mortality) and non-clinical (quality of life and cost) outcomes from recent randomized studies, and finally discuss certain aspects when it comes to adopting TRA., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A well-established body of evidence demonstrating the advantages of a transradial approach for coronary angiography and intervention has led to worldwide adoption of this technique. In some countries, radial access has replaced femoral access as the dominant access site for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). More recently, numerous randomized controlled trials have compared transradial and transfemoral access in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and have shown that transradial access is associated with lower mortality and less major bleeding. This review examines the advantages of transradial primary PCI for STEMI patients, addresses concerns in adopting this approach for primary PCI, and reviews recommendations on how to start a transradial primary PCI program., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to perform a randomized noninferiority trial of radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization comparing femoral access (FA) with left radial access (LRA) and right radial access (RRA)., Background: Increased radiation exposure with radial approach compared with femoral approach remains a controversial issue., Methods: This study randomized 1,493 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization at a tertiary care center to FA, LRA, and RRA in a 1:1:1 fashion. The primary endpoint was air kerma. The secondary endpoints included dose-area product, fluoroscopy time and operator dose per procedure, number of cineangiograms, and number of catheters., Results: Baseline and procedural characteristics were similar among groups. No significant differences were observed in air kerma (medians: FA: 421 mGy [interquartile range (IQR): 337 to 574 mGy], LRA: 454 mGy [IQR: 331 to 643 mGy], and RRA: 483 mGy [IQR: 382 to 592 mGy], p = 0.146), dose-area product (medians: FA: 25.5 Gy cm(2) [IQR: 19.6 to 34.5 Gy cm(2)], LRA: 26.6 Gy cm(2) [IQR: 19.5 to 37.5 Gy cm(2)], and RRA: 27.7 Gy cm(2) [IQR: 21.9 to 34.4 Gy cm(2)], p = 0.40), or fluoroscopy time (medians: FA: 1.3 min [IQR: 1.0 to 1.7 min], LRA: 1.3 min [IQR: 1.0 to 1.7 min], and RRA: 1.32 min [IQR: 1.0 to 1.7 min], p = 0.19) among the 3 access sites. Median operator exposure was higher in the LRA group (3 mrem [IQR: 2 to 5 mrem], p = 0.001 vs. FA, and p = 0.0001 vs. RRA) compared with the FA (2 mrem [IQR: 2 to 4 mrem] and RRA groups (3 mrem [IQR: 2 to 5 mrem])., Conclusions: Radiation exposure to patients was similar during diagnostic coronary angiography with FA, RRA, and LRA. However, LRA was associated with significantly higher operator radiation exposure than were FA and RRA procedures. (Randomized Evaluation of Vascular Entry Site and Radiation Exposure [REVERE]; NCT01677481)., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The benefit of transradial access (TRA) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) is uncertain. We sought to determine the benefits of TRA in patients with CS undergoing coronary angiography/intervention., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, and electronic databases were searched for studies that assessed the following: (1) patients with CS who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and (2) the association between choice of arterial access, 30-day all-cause mortality, and 30-day major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs) using random-effects model., Results: From 3,652 retrieved citations, 8 studies involving 8,131 patients with CS undergoing PCI (via TRA: 2,321 patients, via TFA: 5,810 patients) were included. Transradial access was associated with significantly reduced risk for all-cause mortality (unadjusted: risk ratio [RR] 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.71, P < .001, I(2) = 29%, 8 included studies; adjusted: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.65, P < .001, I(2) = 0%, 6 included studies) and MACCE (unadjusted: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.63-0.73, P < .001, I(2) = 0%, 6 included studies; adjusted: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.75, P < .001, I(2) = 0%, 4 included studies) at 30 days when compared with TFA., Conclusions: Transradial access is associated with reduced mortality and MACCE at 30 days in patients with CS undergoing PCI. Considering the possible influence of selection bias on the effect estimate in our analysis, randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess this association., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the SAFE-PCI for Women trial, patient preference for radial access for future procedures was greater than for femoral access. We sought to assess whether radial or femoral access impacts formal measures of quality-of-life (QOL) among women undergoing cardiac catheterization., Methods: We assessed QOL using European quality of life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores among 304 women randomized to radial or femoral arteriotomy in the SAFE-PCI for Women trial at sites with QOL substudy approval. Patient surveys were administered at baseline, hospital discharge, and 30 days (for percutaneous coronary intervention patients)., Results: Women randomized to both treatments had similar EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS scores at baseline, hospital discharge, and 30-day follow-up. After adjustment for baseline scores, there was no effect of assigned treatment on EQ-5D (discharge 0.004; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 30 days -0.03; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02) or EQ-VAS (discharge -1.31; 95% CI -4.74 to 2.12; 30 days -2.10; 95% CI -8.92 to 4.71) scores. At discharge, 60.5% versus 63.5% (P = .60) of patients in radial and femoral groups were free from access site pain; at 30 days, rates were 85.7% versus 77.6% (P = .30), respectively. Patient preference for the same access strategy for repeat procedures was greater in the radial versus femoral group (77.2% vs 26.8%; P < .0001)., Conclusions: Using established QOL instruments, we did not measure any difference in QOL or functional status according to access site strategy in women undergoing cardiac catheterization, yet patient preference for the radial approach was significantly greater. Other factors influencing patient choice for radial access should be investigated., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The prevention of major bleeding during percutaneous coronary intervention is one of the most widely discussed and often controversial topics within interventional cardiology. The choice of arterial access should be considered a mechanism for bleeding avoidance, and various strategies have been proposed to prevent or lower major bleeding and vascular complications with varying levels of strength. Herein, we review the current literature on arterial access as a bleeding avoidance strategy during percutaneous coronary intervention and its impact on outcome and provide a consensus opinion based on the strength of the evidence supporting various techniques., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the most common complication of the transradial approach (TRA) to cardiac catheterization, with a reported incidence between 0.8 % and 30 %. RAO is likely the result of acute thrombus formation and complicated by neointimal hyperplasia. Most RAO are asymptomatic with rare cases of acute hand or digit ischemia reported in the literature. The role of testing for dual circulation to the hand in determining the safety of TRA as it relates to symptomatic RAO is controversial; however, modifiable risk factors like low sheath-to-artery ratio, adequate anticoagulation, and non-occlusive ("patent") hemostasis are likely to prevent RAO. This review examines the incidence of RAO, potential mechanisms leading to RAO, and strategies to prevent and treat RAO.

Background/purpose: Compared with trans-femoral percutaneous coronary intervention (TFI), trans-radial PCI (TRI) has a lower risk of bleeding, access site complications and hospital costs, and is preferred by patients. However, TRI accounts for a minority of PCIs in the US, and there is currently little research that explores why., Methods/material: We conducted a national survey in February 2013 to assess perceptions of TRI vs. TFI, and barriers to TRI adoption and implementation among interventional cardiologists employed by the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and linked these data to site-level TRI annual rates for 2013., Results: We received 78 completed surveys (32% response rate). Respondents at sites that perform few or no TRIs identified increased radiation exposure as the greatest barrier while at sites that perform a high percentage of TRIs respondents identified the steep learning curve as the greatest barrier. Majorities of survey respondents at all sites rated TRI as superior on 5 of 7 criteria, including patient comfort and bleeding complications, but rated TFI as superior on procedure time and procedure success., Conclusions: Even interventional cardiologists at sites that perform few or any TRIs recognized the superiority of TRI for patient comfort and safety, but rated it inferior to TFI on procedure time and technical results. Interventional cardiologists at high-TRI labs rated TRI as equivalent on procedure time and technical results. Efforts to increase TRI adoption and implementation may be more successful if they emphasize that procedure times and technical results depend on achieving proficiency., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: To assess feasibility and utility of imaging of both arms using ultrasound to facilitate transradial (TR) and transulnar (TU) coronary angiograms (CA) and intervention., Background: Despite well recognized advantages, transradial approach (TRA) has challenges that reduce procedural success including small arterial size, anatomical variations, and anomalies of radial artery (RA). The utility of routine pre-procedural ultrasound of the arm arteries (PPUAA) in facilitating TRA has not been previously studied., Methods: To determine the role of PPUAA, we performed a single center registry of consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic and interventional procedures between 2006 and 2011. All patients underwent PPUAA of the right and left radial, ulnar (UA), as well as the brachial arteries (BA) in the antecubital fossa using a linear probe. End-points assessed included the incidence and correlates of arterial sizes, vascular anomalies, procedure success, and fluoroscopy as well as ultrasound assessment times. RA occlusion rates were studied in the last 10 months of the study period., Results: Complete data on radial (mean 1.9 mm (male);1.7 mm (female)) and ulnar artery size (mean 1.8 mm (male); 1.6 mm (female)) and data on brachial branching anatomy were available in 2,344 patients; 1,872 of whom underwent a TR or TU procedure. The mean time to perform bilateral PPUAA was 6.4 min ± 1.8 min. The incidence of arterial abnormalities was 9.8% in PPUAA. Procedure success was 98.7% for CA and 97.5% for percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcomes were better in this cohort compared with remaining 3,781 patients in whom PPUAA data were not available., Conclusion: This single center prospective registry shows that PPUAA is feasible, requires minimum time, and provides anatomical information that may improve procedure success while reducing patient discomfort, arterial spasm, and fluoroscopy time. These findings should be confirmed in a randomized trial., (Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Bleeding is a major limitation of antithrombotic therapy among invasively managed non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) patients; therefore, we examined the use of radial access and its association with outcomes among NSTE-ACS patients., Methods: Clinical characteristics and geographic variation in radial access were examined, as well as its association with bleeding, red blood cell transfusion and ischemic outcomes (96-hour death/myocardial infarction/recurrent ischemic/thrombotic bailout; 30-day death/myocardial infarction; 1-year death) in the EARLY versus delayed, provisional eptifibatide in acute coronary syndromes trial., Results: Of 9126 patients, 13.5% underwent radial-access catheterization. Female sex, age, weight, and prior revascularization were inversely associated with radial access, and its use varied widely by country (2%-97%). There were fewer GUSTO severe/moderate bleeds and red blood cell transfusions in the radial access group; however, it was attenuated after adjustment (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence intervals [CI] [0.50-1.06], P = .094 and 1.00 [0.71-1.40] P = .991). Ischemic outcomes did not differ by access site., Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of a large clinical trial, there was significant international variation in use of radial access for NSTE-ACS patients undergoing invasive management, and it was preferentially used in those at lower risk for bleeding. Radial approach was not associated with a significant reduction in either bleeding or ischemic outcomes. Further study is needed to determine whether wider application of radial approach to acute coronary syndrome patients at high risk for bleeding improves overall outcomes., (Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Since its advent over two decades ago, transradial access for cardiac catheterization and percutaneous intervention has evolved into a versatile and evidence-based approach for containing the risks of access-site bleeding and vascular complications without compromising the technical range or success associated with contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Early studies demonstrated reduced rates of vascular complications and access-site bleeding with radial-access catheterization but at the cost of increased access-site crossover and reduced procedural success. Contemporary data demonstrate that while the rates of major bleeding with femoral-access PCI in standard-risk cohorts have declined significantly over time, the transradial approach still retains significant advantages by way of reductions in vascular complications, length of stay, and enhanced patient comfort and patient preference over the femoral approach, while maintaining procedural success. Major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding are lowest with the transradial approach when procedures are performed at high-volume radial centers, by experienced radial operators, or in the context of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Choice of procedural anticoagulation appears to differentially impact access-site bleeding in transradial versus transfemoral PCI; however, non-access site bleeding remains a significant contributor to major bleeding in both groups. Despite abundant supporting data, adoption of transradial technique as the default strategy in cardiac catheterization in the United States has lagged behind many other countries. However, recent trends suggest that interest and adoption of the technique in the United States is growing at a brisker pace than previously observed.

Background: Despite lower risks of access site-related complications with transradial approach (TRA), its clinical benefit for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing TRA and transfemoral approach (TFA) for PCI., Methods: Randomized trials and observational studies (1993-2011) comparing TRA with TFA for PCI with reports of ischemic and bleeding outcomes were included. Crude and adjusted (for age and sex) odds ratios (OR) were estimated by a hierarchical Bayesian random-effects model with prespecified stratification for observational and randomized designs. The primary outcomes were rates of death, combined incidence of death or myocardial infarction, bleeding, and transfusions, early (≤ 30 days) and late after PCI., Results: We collected data from 76 studies (15 randomized, 61 observational) involving a total of 761,919 patients. Compared with TFA, TRA was associated with a 78% reduction in bleeding (OR 0.22, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.16-0.29) and 80% in transfusions (OR 0.20, 95% CrI 0.11-0.32). These findings were consistent in both randomized and observational studies. Early after PCI, there was a 44% reduction of mortality with TRA (OR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.45-0.67), although the effect was mainly due to observational studies (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.40-0.63, adjusted OR 0.49 [95% CrI 0.37-0.60]), with an OR of 0.80 (95% CrI 0.49-1.23) in randomized trials., Conclusion: Our results combining observational and randomized studies show that PCI performed by TRA is associated with substantially less risks of bleeding and transfusions compared with TFA. Benefit on the incidence of death or combined death or myocardial infarction is found in observational studies but remains inconclusive in randomized trials., (Copyright © 2012 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

This paper provides a comprehensive up-to-date review of the medical and invasive management of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), as supported by recent updates to the ACC/AHA Guidelines. The authors have summarized findings from key clinical trials published in recent years that contribute to clinician's understanding of how best to optimize therapy. The goals for the management of NSTE-ACS and STEMI are rapid and accurate risk stratification, appropriate and institution-specific triage to interventional versus medical strategies and optimal pharmacologic therapy - all of which provide for a smooth and seamless transition of care between the emergency department and the cardiology service. High-risk features or absolute treatment trigger criteria that support more aggressive medical therapy (i.e., addition of a small molecule gylcoprotein [GP] IIb/IIIa inhibitor to a core regimen of aspirin, enoxaparin or other anticoagulants, and in most cases, clopidogrel) and/or that would direct clinicians toward percutaneous interventional strategies as the preferred modality include, but are not limited to the presence of one or more of the following: 1) elevatedcardiac markers (troponin and/or CK-MB); 2) age older than 65 years; 3) presence of ST-T-wave changes; 4) TIMI Risk Score >/= 5; 5) clinical instability in the setting of suspected NSTE-ACS. Although additional refinements and changes in ACS management are still to come, evidence-based strategies suggest that prompt mechanical revascularization is associated with the best possible clinical outcomes, particularly for patients with high-risk features and in whom benefits of adjunctive, pharmacoinvasive antithrombotic therapies can be consolidated. Transfer for cardiac catheterization/percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is strongly recommended in patients who manifest high-risk features and/or aggressive treatment trigger criteria, so that this high-risk subgroup may receive definitive, interventional and/or cardiology-directed specialty care at appropriate sites of care. When available, interventional management is preferred in these patients. The importance of safe and effective anticoagulation in the spectrum of management strategies has been confirmed, and the evidence in support of enoxaparin and other antithrombotic agents has been reviewed. Dosing recommendations for enoxaparin use in the setting of PCI have been issued by the CATH Panel and have been summarized in this consensus report. Similar recommendations have been presented for the use of oral antiplatelet agents and GP IIb/IIIa antagonists. The addition of statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta-blockers is also stressed as part of a comprehensive secondary cardioprotective strategy for patients with coronary heart disease.

This paper provides a comprehensive up-to-date review of the medical and invasive management of patients with non- ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). The authors have summarized findings from key clinical trials published recent years that contribute to clinicians' understanding of how best to optimize therapy. The goals for the management of NSTE-ACS are rapid and accurate risk stratification, appropriate and institution-specific triage to interventional versus medical strategies and optimal pharmacologic therapy--all of which provide for a smooth and seamless transition of care between the emergency department and the cardiology service. High-risk features or absolute treatment trigger criteria that support more aggressive medical therapy (i.e., addition of small-molecule GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor to a core regimen of aspirin, enoxaparin, and in most cases, clopidogrel) and/or that would direct clinicians toward percutaneous, mechanical/interventional strategies as the preferred modality include, but are not limited to, the presence of one or more of the following: (1) elevated cardiac markers (troponin and/or CK-MB); (2) elevated levels of inflammatory markers (particularly CRP > 3 microg/dl); (3) age > 65 years; (4) presence of ST-T wave changes; (5) TIMI Risk Score greater than or equal to 4; (6) diabetes; and/or (7) clinical instability in the setting of suspected NSTE-ACS. Specific clinical, ECG and/or biochemical trigger points modulate the aggressiveness of both the medical therapy and the propensity to perform early angiography with or without subsequent revascularization in patients with NSTE-ACS. Although additional refinements and changes in ACS management are still to come, evidence-based strategies suggest that prompt mechanical revascularization is associated with the best possible clinical outcomes, particularly for patients with high-risk features and in whom benefits of adjunctive, pharmacoinvasive antithrombotic therapies can be consolidated. Patient transfer for cardiac catheterization/percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is strongly recommended in patients who manifest high-risk features and/or aggressive treatment trigger criteria, so that this high-risk subgroup may receive definitive, interventional and/or cardiology-directed specialty care at appropriate sites of care. When available, interventional management is preferred in these patients. The importance of safe and effective anticoagulation in the spectrum of management strategies has been confirmed, and the evidence in support of enoxaparin and other antithrombotic agents has been reviewed. Dosing recommendations for enoxaparin use in the setting of PCI have been issued by the CATH Panel and have been summarized in this consensus report. Similar recommendations have been presented for the use of oral antiplatelet agents and GP IIb/IIIa antagonists. The addition of statins, ACE-inhibitors and beta-blockers is also stressed as part of a comprehensive secondary cardioprotective strategy for patients with coronary heart disease.

Quality assurance and improvement have increasingly been the focus of health care providers, third-party payers, and patients. Because cardiovascular procedures are common, easily identifiable with claims data, and account for a relatively large proportion of health care expenditures, particular attention has been paid to quality assurance in the setting of the diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization laboratory. The structure, process, and outcomes domains of quality measurement in the interventional laboratory involve the maintenance of volume standards, the availability of surgical backup, consistent tracking of procedural outcomes and complications so they can be compared with national standards, and the application of evidence-based therapy. Quality assurance i the diagnostic laboratory revolves around the clinical proficiency of the operators, the maintenance and management of catheterization laboratory equipment, and the presence of a continuous quality improvement program. The evolution of interventional equipment and techniques along with the establishment of national registries has led to a gradual improvement in the quality of percutaneous coronary intervention. Given the dynamic nature of cardiology, adaptable quality assurance and quality improvement programs will remain the foundation of successful catheterization labs.

The aims of this study were to examine rates of radial artery access in post–coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients undergoing diagnostic catherization and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), whether operators with higher procedural volumes and higher percentage radial use were more likely to perform diagnostic catherization and/or PCI via the radial approach in post-CABG patients, and clinical and procedural outcomes in post-CABG patients who undergo diagnostic catherization and/or PCI via the radial or femoral approach. There are limited data comparing outcomes of patients with prior CABG undergoing transradial or transfemoral diagnostic catheterization and/or PCI. Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry, all diagnostic catheterizations and PCIs performed in patients with prior CABG from July 1, 2009, to March 31, 2018 (n = 1,279,058, 1,173 sites) were evaluated. Temporal trends in transradial access were examined, and mortality, bleeding, vascular complications, and procedural metrics were compared between transradial and transfemoral access. The rate of transradial access increased from 1.4% to 18.7% over the study period. Transradial access was associated with decreased mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 0.91), decreased bleeding (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.63), decreased vascular complications (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.47), increased PCI procedural success (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.16; p < 0.0001), and significantly decreased contrast volume across all procedure types. Transradial access was associated with shorter fluoroscopy time for PCI-only procedures but longer fluoroscopy time for diagnostic procedures plus ad hoc PCI and diagnostic procedures only. Operators with a higher rate of transradial access in non-CABG patients were more likely to perform transradial access in patients with prior CABG. The rate of transradial artery access in patients with prior CABG undergoing diagnostic catheterization and/or PCI has increased over the past decade in the United States, and it was more often performed by operators using a transradial approach in non-CABG patients. Compared with transfemoral access, transradial access was associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with prior CABG. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]