Search

To verify whether transradial (TRA) compared to transfemoral (TFA) cardiac catheterization reduces the risk of periprocedural stroke (PS). We reviewed (CRD42021277918) published real-world cohorts reporting the incidence of PS within 3 days following diagnostic or interventional catheterization. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions of odds ratios (OR) performed using the DerSimonian and Laird method were checked for publication bias (Egger test) and adjusted for false-positive results (study sequential analysis SSA). The pooled incidence of PS from 2,188,047 catheterizations (14 cohorts), was 193 (105 to 355) per 100,000. Meta-analyses of adjusted estimates (OR = 0.66 (0.49 to 0.89); p = 0.007; I2 = 90%), unadjusted estimates (OR = 0.63 (0.51 to 0.77; I2 = 74%; p = 0.000)), and a sub-group of prospective cohorts (OR = 0.67 (0.48 to 0.94; p = 0.022; I2 = 16%)) had a lower risk of PS in TRA (without indication of publication bias). SSA confirmed the pooled sample size was sufficient to support these conclusions. Meta-regression decreased the unexplained heterogeneity but did not identify any independent predictor of PS nor any effect modifier. Periprocedural stroke remains a rare and hard-to-predict adverse event associated with cardiac catheterization. TRA is associated with a 20% to 30% lower risk of PS in real-world/common practice settings. Future studies are unlikely to change our conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study is the first multicentric report on the safety, efficacy, and technical performance of utilizing a large bore (0.081″ inner diameter) access catheter in neurovascular interventions.Data were retrospectively collected from seven sites in the United States for neurovascular procedures via large bore 0.081″ inner diameter access catheter (Benchmark BMX81, Penumbra, Inc.). The primary outcome was technical success, defined as the access catheter reaching its target vessel. Safety outcomes included periprocedural device-related and access site complications.There were 90 consecutive patients included. The median age of the patients was 63 years (IQR: 53, 68); 53% were female. The most common interventions were aneurysm embolization (33.3%), carotid stenting (12.2%), and arteriovenous malformation embolization (11.1%). The transradial approach was most used (56.7%), followed by transfemoral (41.1%). Challenging anatomic variations included severe vessel tortuosity (8/90, 8.9%), type 2 aortic arch (7/90, 7.8%), type 3 aortic arch (2/90, 2.2%), bovine arch (2/90, 2.2%), and severe angle (<30°) between the subclavian artery and target vessel (1/90, 1.1%). Technical success was achieved in 98.9% of the cases (89/90), with six cases requiring a switch from radial to femoral (6.7%) and one case from femoral to radial (1.1%). There were no access site complications or complications related to the 0.081″ catheter. Two postprocedural complications occurred (2.2%), unrelated to the access catheter.The BMX™ 81 large-bore access catheters was safe and effective in both radial and femoral access across a wide range of neurovascular procedures, achieving high technical success without any access site or device-related complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We sought to compare the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention in patients with coronary artery bypass grafts in terms of volume of radiographic contrast administered during cardiac catheterization, fluoroscopy time, and total procedure time.Background: The transradial access has been increasingly used as an alternative to transfemoral. Several studies demonstrated that such access is associated with lower rates of vascular and bleeding complications. Although coronary artery bypass graft patients comprise a significant portion of the coronary artery disease population, this subpopulation was often excluded or underrepresented in transradial access studies.Methods: Single center, retrospective cohort study. In the study period, all patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery and had received cardiac catheterization at our institution were included in the study population.Results: A total of 2153 patients were included in the study. From these, 1937 were performed by femoral artery and 216 by transradial approach. Compared to the transfemoral approach, transradial access was associated with lower contrast use (136.3 ± 74.4 ml vs. 122.8 ± 59.1 ml, p = 0.035) and longer fluoroscopy time (13.9 ± 25.6 min vs. 15.9 ± 14.3 min, p < 0.001).Conclusion: Diagnostic and interventional catheterization through the transradial approach in patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery was associated with less contrast amount used and longer fluoroscopy time compared to the transfemoral approach. The transradial approach was also associated with lower crossover rates and less vascular complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: In patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), the benefits associated with radial access compared with the femoral access approach remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term evidence-based clinical outcome of the two approaches. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radial versus femoral access for CA and PCI. We identified 34 RCTs with 29,352 patients who underwent CA and/or PCI and compared 14,819 patients randomized for radial access with 14,533 who underwent procedures using femoral access. The follow-up period for clinical outcome was 30 days in all studies. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effect or a random-effect model, as appropriate. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for efficacy and safety outcomes.Results: Compared with femoral access, the radial access was associated with significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (RR: 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61 to 0.88; p = 0.001), major bleeding (RR: 0.53; 95% CI:0.43 to 0.65; p ˂ 0.00001), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)(RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.91; p = 0.0002), and major vascular complications (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.48; p ˂ 0.00001). These results were consistent irrespective of the clinical presentation of ACS or STEMI. Conclusions: Radial access in patients undergoing CA with or without PCI is associated with lower mortality, MACE, major bleeding and vascular complications, irrespective of clinical presentation, ACS or STEMI, compared with femoral access.

Introduction: The radial artery is currently the most widely used access site for PCI procedures both acute and stable patient settings. Thanks to advantages in pharmacological therapy as well as in interventional devices, the rate of ischemic complications following PCI has significantly decreased. Nevertheless, this has been counterbalanced by an increased risk of periprocedural and late bleeding event, that can occur both at access and non-access sites. Choice of access site for PCI is of paramount importance to reduce the risk of access-related bleeding events. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the actual available evidence comparing the transradial versus transfemoral approach to reduce hemorrhagic events. The most robust evidence comes from large randomized trials, partly also from observational registries, which compared the transradial and transfemoral approach. Expert opinion: Results show that radial access has proved to be decisive in reducing the incidence of hemorrhagic events. Furthermore, it showed a significant reduction in mortality and AKI compared to transfemoral access. However, increased experience in the use of the radial approach has led to less practice in the use of the femoral approach, which may be useful in cases of emergency, complications or inability to use the radial artery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Over the recent years, there has been increased interest in the use of transradial (TR) access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including rotational atherectomy (RA). However, a large proportion of operators seem to be reluctant to use TR access for complex PCI including rotational atherectomy for heavily calcified coronary lesions.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing radial versus femoral access in patients undergoing RA. Studies were included if they reported at least one of the following outcomes in each group separately: major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction (MI), hospital length of stay, radiation exposure, procedure time, procedure success and all-cause mortality. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and a p-value of <0.05 was considered as a level of significance.Results: This meta-analysis included 5 retrospective studies with 3315 patients undergoing RA via radial access and 5838 patients via femoral access. Radial access was associated with lower major access site bleeding (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31-0.67, p < 0.001), and radiation exposure (MD: -16.1, 95%CI: -25.4--6.7 Gy cm2, p = 0.0007). There were no significant differences observed in all-cause in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69-1.23, p = 0.58); MACE (OR: 0.80, CI: 0.63, 1.02, p = 0.08), stent thrombosis (OR: 0.28, 95%CI: 0.06-1.33 p = 0.11); and MI (OR: 0.43, 95%CI: 0.15-1.24, p = 0.12). There were no significant differences in hospital stay, procedure time or procedure success between the two groups (p > 0.05).Conclusion: This meta-analysis of 9153 patients from observational studies demonstrates similar all-cause mortality, MACE, procedural success and procedural time during RA performed using TR access and TF access. However, TR access was associated with decreased access site bleeding and radiation exposure. Given the observational nature of these findings, a randomized controlled trial is warranted for further evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Recently, several meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that transradial access (TRA) reduces mortality compared to transfemoral access (TFA). However, a critical appraisal of these RCTs suggests that the findings could have resulted from a greater incidence of adverse events in the TFA groups rather than a beneficial effect of TRA. Methods Scientific databases and websites were searched for RCTs. Patients were divided into groups based on access type and whether the operator was a radial expert (RE) or non-radial expert (NRE). The groups were TFA-RE, TFA-NRE, TRA-RE, and TRA-NRE. Both a traditional meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis using mixed-treatment comparison models were performed. Results Data from 13 trials including 15,615 patients were analyzed. The mortality rate for TFA-RE (3.54%) was more than double compared to TFA-NRE (1.61%). In pairwise meta-analysis, TFA-RE was associated with increased risk of mortality (RR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.13–2.62; p = 0.011) compared to TFA-NRE. In subgroup analysis, TFA-RE was associated with increased mortality (RR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.24–2.34; p = 0.001) compared to TRA, but TRA-NRE was not. Similarly, in mixed comparison models, TFA-RE was associated with increased mortality compared to TRA-NRE, TRA-RE, and TFA-NRE, but TFA-NRE was not, compared to TRA-RE and TRA-NRE. Conclusion Recently-reported survival differences between TRA and TFA may have been driven by adverse events in the TFA groups of the RCTs rather than a beneficial effect of TRA. This issue needs further investigation before labeling radial access a lifesaving procedure in invasively-managed patients with ACS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the major criticisms of the radial approach is that it takes longer overall procedure and fluoroscopy time, which means not only more staff will be exposed during the procedures, but they will also stand close to the patient where rates of radiation scattered by the patient are higher. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of the radial versus femoral artery approach in our institution’s routine coronary angiography practice. Methods: All cases of diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) over a 23 month period at a tertiary care hospital were reviewed for this analysis. Procedure duration was calculated as a total in laboratory catheter time. Contrast volume and fluoroscopy time were recorded, as it is correlated to catheter manipulation. Results: Eight hundred patients who underwent a diagnostic CA were included in this study. The radial approach was used in 586 patients (73.25%) and the femoral approach in 214 patients (26.75%). Comparing the radial and femoral approaches, fluoroscopy and procedure times were not significantly different (3.43 ± 1.19 vs 3.86 ± 1.49 min, P = 0.215 and 31.87 ± 9.61 vs 33.24 ± 10.33 min, P = 0.170, respectively). While contrast utilization during the procedure was significantly lower in the radial than the femoral approach (67.63 ± 25.49 vs 81.53 ± 24.80 mL respectively, P = 0.03). Conclusion: Transradial coronary angiography can be safely performed for the patient and the professional staff members as the transfemoral approach.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is considered the preferred reperfusion strategy for patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study compares the door-to-balloon (D2B) time between transradial vs. the transfemoral approach in patients presenting with STEMI. Methods: A retrospectively collected catheterization laboratory database was reviewed for the consecutive patients presenting with a STEMI. Specific time parameters were recorded, and our composite end points were time to revascularization, angiographic success, short term clinical success, and procedural vascular complications. Results: Radial PCI (r-PCI) was performed in 33 patients (67.3%) and in 16 patients (32.7%) PCI was done through femoral artery (f-PCI). No significant difference was observed in the pre-catheter and catheter laboratory times. Mean times from emergency room door-to-catheter laboratory time for r-PCI vs. f-PCI were 82.48 ± 37.42 and 76.29 ± 34.32 min, respectively (P = 0.636). The mean time from patient arrival to the cardiac catheter laboratory-to-balloon inflation was 34.56 ± 14.2 in the r-PCI group vs. 33.12 ± 12.56 min with the f-PCI group (P = 0.215). The total D2B time was not significantly different between r-PCI vs. f-PCI groups (100.32 ± 36.3 vs. 97.31 ± 30.37 min, respectively, P = 0.522). Angiographic success rates were observed in 92.1% of the patients for r-PCI, and in 87.5% for f-PCI (P = 0.712). There were no vascular complications in both groups. Conclusions: Patients presenting with STEMI can undergo successful pPCI via radial artery without compromising patient care.

We sought to evaluate the impact of experience and proficiency with radial approach (RA) on clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed via femoral approach (FA) in the “real-world” national registry. A total of 539 invasive cardiologists performing PCIs in 151 invasive cardiology centers in Poland between 2014 and 2017 were included. Proficiency threshold was set at >300 PCIs during four consecutive years per individual operator. The majority of operators performed >75% of all PCIs via RA (449 (65.4%)), 143 (20.8%) in 50−75% of cases, 62 (9.0%) in 25−50% and only 33 (4.8%) invasive cardiologists were using RA in

This study aims to compare prospectively the differences of clinical outcomes being associated with a specific femoral closure (FC) compared to a radial compression (RC) device following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). This single-center, prospective observational study included consecutively 400 patients either treated by a specific FC (Angio-Seal™, St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Paul, MN) or RC (TR Band, Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) device following PCI. The primary outcome was to evaluate overall, access site and non-access site bleedings, the secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) occurring within 30 days of follow-up. 200 patients in each group (FC and RC group) were enrolled following PCI. The prevalence of overall bleedings was 56% in FC and 37% in RC group ( p = 0.001). Access site bleedings were significantly higher in the FC (50%) compared to the RC (30%) group ( p = 0.001). Most common type of access site bleeding consisted of hematomas (FC 45% vs. RC 27%, p = 0.001). Of these, intermediate and large hematomas were significantly higher in the FC group ( p < 0.05). Surgical interventions following device-related bleedings were uncommon in both groups. No significant differences of MACE were observed in both treatment groups. Despite the use of a vascular closure device, the femoral arterial access is still associated with a higher rate of access site bleedings, consisting mostly of intermediate to large hematomas. No differences of MACE were found between FC versus RC following PCI at 30 days. Trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov (). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To assess whether radial compared with femoral access is associated with consistent outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Methods and results In the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX (MATRIX) programme patients were randomized to radial or femoral access, stratified by STEMI (2001 radial, 009 femoral) and NSTE-ACS (2196 radial, 2198 femoral). The 30-day co-primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as MACE or major bleeding In the overall study population, radial access reduced the NACE but not MACE endpoint at the prespecified 0.025 alpha. MACE occurred in 121 (6.1%) STEMI patients with radial access vs. 126 (6.3%) patients with femoral access [rate ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75-1.24; P = 0.76] and in 248 (11.3%) NSTE-ACS patients with radial access vs. 303 (13.9%) with femoral access (RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.67-0.96; P = 0.016) (Pint = 0.25). NACE occurred in 142 (7.2%) STEMI patients with radial access and in 165 (8.3%) patients with femoral access (RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.68-1.08; P = 0.18) and in 268 (12.2%) NSTE-ACS patients with radial access compared with 321 (14.7%) with femoral access (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.69-0.97; P = 0.023) (Pint = 0.76). All-cause mortality and access site-actionable bleeding favoured radial access irrespective of ACS type (Pint = 0.11 and Pint = 0.36, respectively). Conclusion Radial as compared with femoral access provided consistent benefit across the whole spectrum of patients with ACS, without evidence that type of presenting syndrome affected the results of the random access allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data regarding radiation exposure related to radial versus femoral arterial access in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain controversial. This study aims to evaluate patients enrolled in the FERARI study regarding radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time and contrast agent use.Methods: The Femoral Closure versus Radial Compression Devices Related to Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (FERARI) study evaluated prospectively 400 patients between February 2014 and May 2015 undergoing PCI either using the radial or femoral access. In these 400 patients, baseline characteristics, procedural data such as procedural duration, fluoroscopy time, dose-area product (DAP) as well as the amount of contrast agent used were documented and analyzed.Results: Median fluoroscopy time was not significantly different in patients undergoing radial versus femoral access (12.2 vs. 9.8min, p=0.507). Furthermore, median DAP (54.5 vs. 52.0 Gycm2, p=0.826), procedural duration (46.0 vs. 45.0min, p=0.363) and contrast agent use (185.5 vs. 199.5ml, p=0.742) were also similar in radial and femoral PCI.Conclusion: There was no difference regarding median fluoroscopy time, procedural duration, radiation dose or contrast agent use between radial versus femoral arterial access in PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Femoral artery access is the standard approach for coronary procedures; however, the radial approach has gained sound recognition as an alternative to femoral access. We present our early experience with the transradial approach. Methods: A prospective, non-randomised study of 221 candidates for diagnostic coronary angiography was carried out at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Oman between December 2008 and April 2009. The patients had their procedure performed from radial or femoral access according to operator discretion and the results were compared. Femoral and radial groups included 116 and 105 patients respectively. Results: Radial access was associated with a significantly higher rate of procedural failure (17.1%) versus 0% in femoral group (p = 0.001). There were no local vascular complications in the radial group as opposed to 12.1% in the femoral group (p < 0.01). Hospital length of stay was significantly reduced in the radial group (4.06 versus 23.5 hours, p < 0.01). Total procedure time was longer in the radial group (23.7 ±13.7 min versus 20.1 ±7.4 min, p < 0.001), but radiation exposure was similar in both groups. There was a trend for a higher risk of major adverse cardiac events noticed in the femoral group; however, it did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: The transradial approach for coronary angiography is associated with significantly reduced local vascular complications and shorter hospital stays. The femoral approach is the standard access site for coronary angiography; however, interventional cardiologists should acquire experience in the radial approach as an alternative in specific situations.

In randomized control trials and meta-analyses in patients with acute MI undergoing PCI, the radial artery (RA) approach compared to the femoral artery (FA) approach has shown to safely reduce access site related bleeding, length of hospitalization, and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates. However, these studies have excluded patients with cardiogenic shock. A systematic search was conducted to retrieve studies that investigated the safety of RA to FA PCI in patients with AMI and cardiogenic shock. Primary outcomes of interest was the pooled relative risk ratio (RR) of access site related bleeding. Secondary outcomes included (i) 30-day all cause mortality, (ii) major bleeding, (iii) final TIMI 3 flow, (iv) fluoroscopy time, and (v) amount of contrast volume administered. 6 observational studies with 7,753 patients met inclusion; 5,347 (69 %) with STEMI, 2,406 (31 %) with non-STEMI. In comparison of RA to FA PCI, there was less access site related bleeding (relative risk (RR) 0.11, p = 0.001), less 30-day mortality (RR 0.65, p = 0.0 < 0.001), and less major bleeding (RR of 0.46 p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in final TIMI 3 flow ( p = 0.27), fluoroscopy time ( p = 0.95), and contrast volume administered ( p = 0.59). In conclution, despite its limitations, our analysis demonstrates an association towards lower adverse events in the RA PCI group. Although we believe that the choice of access site in a high-risk setting should be at the operator discretion, if technically feasible, the RA appears to be a reasonable vascular access approach in high-risk patients in cardiogenic shock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Radial approach invasive coronary angiography has been shown to be superior to the femoral approach in terms of reducing vascular access complications and improving patient comfort. However, one major limitation has been the perception of higher patient radiation exposure, with guidelines recommending 7mSv as an appropriate average effective dose (E) for routine coronary angiography. Therefore, we sought here to assess differences in radiation exposure between the femoral and radial access routes in patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography with or without angioplasty (CA +/- PCI), as performed by two operators, experienced in both techniques. Methods Consecutive patients (n = 870) from July 2011-December 2012, undergoing routine CA +/- PCI at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney by two experienced interventional cardiologists were identified. Radiation doses were automatically recorded as dose area products (DAPs) at procedure time and converted into E using a conversion factor of 0.18 mSv/(Gycm2), as validated by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). Results Of the 870 patients, 598 underwent diagnostic CA (347 femoral, 251 radial); and 272 underwent CA+ PCI (179 femoral, 93 radial). The mean age of the patients was 65 ± 12 years and the majority (n = 617, 71%) were male. Both groups were well matched with respect to baseline demographics, clinical presentation and angiographic characteristics, though there was an excess of patients with a history of coronary grafts in the femoral group, due to operator preference. In the patients who underwent diagnostic CA, there was no significant difference in the average effective radiation dose for femoral versus radial arterial access ( E = 7.9 ± 8.2 vs. 8.3 ± 10.6mSv; p = 0.66). Similarly, there was also no difference in average effective radiation dose for femoral versus radial arterial access in patients undergoing CA + PCI ( E = 13.2 ± 8.1 vs E = 14.4 ± 8.3 mSv; p = 0.26). Conclusion In our high volume cardiac catheterisation laboratory, radiation doses for routine angiography were near UNSC targets. Patient radiation exposure was comparable between femoral and radial approaches, for both CA and CA +/- PCI. Thus, our results allay concerns that radial cardiac catheterisation might be associated with greater radiation exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives This study sought to determine the relationships among access site practice, clinical presentation, and procedural outcomes in a large patient population. Background Transradial access (TRA) has been associated with improved patient outcomes in selected populations in randomized trials. It is unclear whether these outcomes are achievable in clinical practice. Methods Using the BCIS (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society) database, we investigated outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention procedures undertaken between 2007 and 2012 according to access site practice. Patients were categorized as stable, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) and ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (STEACS). The impact of access site on 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiac events, bleeding, and arterial access site complications was studied. Results Data from 210,260 TRA and 229,687 transfemoral access procedures were analyzed. Following multivariate analysis, TRA was independently associated with a reduction in bleeding in all presenting syndromes (stable odds ratio [OR]: 0.24, p < 0.001; NSTEACS OR: 0.35, p < 0.001; STEACS OR: 0.47, p < 0.001) as well as access site complications (stable OR: 0.21, p < 0.001; NSTEACS OR: 0.19; STEACS OR: 0.16, p < 0.001). TRA was associated with reduced major adverse cardiac events only in patients with unstable syndromes (stable OR: 1.08, p = 0.25; NSTEACS OR: 0.72, p < 0.001; STEACS OR: 0.70, p < 0.001). TRA was associated with improved outcomes compared with a transfemoral access (TFA) with a vascular closure device in a propensity matched cohort. Conclusions In this large study, TRA is associated with reduced percutaneous coronary intervention–related complications in all patient groups and may reduce major adverse cardiac events and mortality in ACS patients. TRA is superior to transfemoral access with closure devices. Use of TRA may lead to important patient benefits in routine practice. TRA should be considered the preferred access site for percutaneous coronary intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Transradial access (TRA) has been associated with reduced access site–related bleeding complications and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It is unclear, however, whether these observed benefits are influenced by baseline bleeding risk. Objectives This study investigated the relationship between baseline bleeding risk, TRA utilization, and procedure-related outcomes in patients undergoing PCI enrolled in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database. Methods Baseline bleeding risk was calculated by using modified Mehran bleeding risk scores in 348,689 PCI procedures performed between 2006 and 2011. Four categories for bleeding risk were defined for the modified Mehran risk score (MMRS): low (<10), moderate (10 to 14), high (15 to 19), and very high (≥20). The impact of baseline bleeding risk on 30-day mortality and its relationship with access site were studied. Results TRA was independently associated with a 35% reduction in 30-day mortality risk (odds ratio [OR]: 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59 to 0.72]; p < 0.0001), with the magnitude of mortality reduction related to baseline bleeding risk (MMRS <10, OR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.62 to 0.86]; MMRS ≥20, OR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.47 to 0.61]). In patients with an MMRS <10, TRA was used in 71,771 (43.2%) of 166,083 PCI procedures; TRA was used in 8,655 (40.1%) of 21,559 PCI procedures in patients with an MMRS ≥20, illustrating that TRA was used less in those at highest risk from bleeding complications (p < 0.0001). Conclusions TRA was independently associated with reduced 30-day mortality, and the magnitude of this effect was related to baseline bleeding risk; those at highest risk of bleeding complications gained the greatest benefit from adoption of TRA during PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compared with transfemoral access, transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with reduced risk of bleeding and vascular complications. Studies suggest that TRA may reduce mortality in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. However, there are few data on the effect of TRA on mortality, specifically, in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.We analyzed 10 095 consecutive patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention between 2005 and 2011 in all 8 tertiary cardiac centers in London, United Kingdom. TRA was a predictor for reduced bleeding (odds ratio=0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08-0.57; P=0.002), access-site complications (odds ratio=0.47; 95% CI: 0.23-0.95; P=0.034), and 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=0.72; 95% CI: 0.54-0.94; P=0.017). Between 2005 and 2007, TRA did not appear to reduce mortality at 1 year (HR=0.81; 95% CI: 0.51-1.28; P=0.376), whereas between 2008 and 2011, TRA conferred survival benefit at 1 year (HR=0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.92; P=0.015). The mortality benefit with TRA at 1 year was not seen at the low-volume centers (HR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.47-1.38; P=0.428) but specifically seen in the high volume radial centers (HR=0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97; P=0.031). In propensity-matched analyses, TRA remained a predictor for survival at 1 year (HR=0.60; 95% CI: 0.42-0.85; P=0.005). Instrumental variable analysis demonstrated that TRA conferred mortality benefit at 1-year with an absolute mortality reduction of 5.8% (P=0.039).In this analysis of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, TRA appears to be a predictor for survival. Furthermore, the evolving learning curve, experience, and expertise may be important factors contributing to the prognostic benefit conferred with TRA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is considered the preferred reperfusion strategy for patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study compares the door-to-balloon (D2B) time between transradial vs. the transfemoral approach in patients presenting with STEMI. Methods: A retrospectively collected catheterization laboratory database was reviewed for the consecutive patients presenting with a STEMI. Specific time parameters were recorded, and our composite end points were time to revascularization, angiographic success, short term clinical success, and procedural vascular complications. Results: Radial PCI (r-PCI) was performed in 33 patients (67.3%) and in 16 patients (32.7%) PCI was done through femoral artery (f-PCI). No significant difference was observed in the pre-catheter and catheter laboratory times. Mean times from emergency room door-to-catheter laboratory time for r-PCI vs. f-PCI were 82.48±37.42 and 76.29±34.32min, respectively (P =0.636). The mean time from patient arrival to the cardiac catheter laboratory-to-balloon inflation was 34.56±14.2 in the r-PCI group vs. 33.12±12.56min with the f-PCI group (P =0.215). The total D2B time was not significantly different between r-PCI vs. f-PCI groups (100.32±36.3 vs. 97.31±30.37min, respectively, P =0.522). Angiographic success rates were observed in 92.1% of the patients for r-PCI, and in 87.5% for f-PCI (P =0.712). There were no vascular complications in both groups. Conclusions: Patients presenting with STEMI can undergo successful pPCI via radial artery without compromising patient care. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: One of the major criticisms of the radial approach is that it takes longer overall procedure and fluoroscopy time, which means not only more staff will be exposed during the procedures, but they will also stand close to the patient where rates of radiation scattered by the patient are higher. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of the radial versus femoral artery approach in our institution’s routine coronary angiography practice. Methods: All cases of diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) over a 23month period at a tertiary care hospital were reviewed for this analysis. Procedure duration was calculated as a total in laboratory catheter time. Contrast volume and fluoroscopy time were recorded, as it is correlated to catheter manipulation. Results: Eight hundred patients who underwent a diagnostic CA were included in this study. The radial approach was used in 586 patients (73.25%) and the femoral approach in 214 patients (26.75%). Comparing the radial and femoral approaches, fluoroscopy and procedure times were not significantly different (3.43±1.19 vs 3.86±1.49min, P =0.215 and 31.87±9.61 vs 33.24±10.33min, P =0.170, respectively). While contrast utilization during the procedure was significantly lower in the radial than the femoral approach (67.63±25.49 vs 81.53±24.80mL respectively, P =0.03). Conclusion: Transradial coronary angiography can be safely performed for the patient and the professional staff members as the transfemoral approach. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: This study sought to investigate the influence of access site utilization on mortality, major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (MACCE), bleeding, and vascular complications in a large number of patients treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in the United Kingdom over a 5-year period, through analysis of the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database. Background: Despite advances in antithrombotic and antiplatelet therapy, bleeding complications remain an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing PPCI. A significant proportion of such bleeding complications are related to the access site, and adoption of radial access may reduce these complications. These benefits have not previously been studied in a large unselected national population of PPCI patients. Methods: Mortality (30-day), MACCE (a composite of 30-day mortality and in-hospital myocardial re-infarction, target vessel revascularization, and cerebrovascular events), and bleeding and access site complications were studied based on transfemoral access (TFA) and transradial access (TRA) site utilization in PPCI STEMI patients. The influence of access site selection was studied in 46,128 PPCI patients; TFA was used in 28,091 patients and TRA in 18,037. Data were adjusted for potential confounders using Cox regression that accounted for the propensity to undergo radial or femoral approach. Results: TRA was independently associated with a lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 0.97; p < 0.05), in-hospital MACCE (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.93; p < 0.05), major bleeding (HR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.74; p < 0.01), and access site complications (HR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.75; p < 0.01). Conclusions: This analysis of a large number of PPCI procedures demonstrates that utilization of TRA is independently associated with major reductions in mortality, MACCE, major bleeding, and vascular complication rates. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Introduction. For many laboratories currently transradial catheterization is the main access for diagnostic coronary angiograms and in patients undergoing coronary intervention, but the femoral approach is still the most used. Material and methods. They conducted an observational, longitudinal, prospective and descriptive in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty Hemodynamics Service Hospital La Raza November 2009 to October 2011. Results. Radial 262 angioplasties were performed outpatient, where illnesses were diabetes mellitus 60%, hypertension 50%, 30% had dyslipidemia, and 60% were smokers. Conclusions. Radial Angioplasty outpatient allows early ambulation of patients providing comfort, it also reduces the length of hospitalization. This program provides the necessary attention to the beneficiaries without increasing costs to the Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: STEMI and unstable acute coronary syndromes are associated with widespread adrenergic activation which may increase radial artery (RA) spasm, requiring cross-over to the femoral artery (FA) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed the incidence of failed trans-radial artery PCI in emergency cases compared with non-emergency cases. Methods: PCI procedures performed by default radial artery operators were assessed in our centre over a 25month period. Those who had both RA and FA access were identified to assess if the double punctures were elective or due to failure of the RA approach. Cross-over rates were compared between emergency and non-emergency cases. Results: 680 cases of PCI were performed, 153 in an emergency setting. In non-emergency cases 403/527 (76.5%) were performed via the RA. In the emergency setting 139/153 (90.8%) were completed by the RA. Previous CABG with multiple arterial conduits was the most common reason for elective FA PCI in both groups. The RA to FA cross-over rate was low with no significant difference between the emergency and non-emergency groups (emergency 1.4%, non-emergency 1.2%, p=1.0). In both groups there was no significant difference between RA and FA procedures in terms of fluoroscopy times (emergency: mean 13.1±7.9min vs 16.1±16.1min, p=.25, non-emergency: 16.6±10.3min vs 18.7±13.6min, p=.07) or contrast volumes (emergency: mean 231±126 ml vs 229±102 ml, p=.77, non-emergency: 223±85 ml vs 237±91 ml, p=.15). Conclusions: The vast majority of PCI can be successfully performed via the RA. Cross-over rates to the FA are low and are not more common in emergency patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article discusses a trial that evaluates the effectiveness of an evidence-based patient decision aids (PtDA) compared with the common care in patients qualified for radial and femoral artery access. The PtDA was contrived to guide patients to make an informed choice, logical with their preferences and values. It discusses the benefits of a vascular access decision aid including reduced decisional conflict, appropriate decisiveness, and improved patient knowledge of healthcare alternatives.

Abstract: Compressive peripheral nerve lesions are commonly seen in clinics and in surgical examinations. We review the anatomy, presentation, examination techniques and management of peripheral nerve pathology in the upper and lower limbs. We present summary tables of peripheral nerve lesions and examination of muscle groups in the upper and lower limbs. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background and Aim: In patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), the benefits associated with radial access compared with the femoral access approach remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term evidence-based clinical outcome of the two approaches. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radial versus femoral access for CA and PCI. We identified 34 RCTs with 29,352 patients who underwent CA and/or PCI and compared 14,819 patients randomized for radial access with 14,533 who underwent procedures using femoral access. The follow-up period for clinical outcome was 30 days in all studies. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effect or a random-effect model, as appropriate. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for efficacy and safety outcomes.Results: Compared with femoral access, the radial access was associated with significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (RR: 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61 to 0.88; p = 0.001), major bleeding (RR: 0.53; 95% CI:0.43 to 0.65; p ˂ 0.00001), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)(RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.91; p = 0.0002), and major vascular complications (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.48; p ˂ 0.00001). These results were consistent irrespective of the clinical presentation of ACS or STEMI. Conclusions: Radial access in patients undergoing CA with or without PCI is associated with lower mortality, MACE, major bleeding and vascular complications, irrespective of clinical presentation, ACS or STEMI, compared with femoral access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We sought to evaluate the impact of experience and proficiency with radial approach (RA) on clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed via femoral approach (FA) in the "real-world" national registry. A total of 539 invasive cardiologists performing PCIs in 151 invasive cardiology centers in Poland between 2014 and 2017 were included. Proficiency threshold was set at >300 PCIs during four consecutive years per individual operator. The majority of operators performed >75% of all PCIs via RA (449 (65.4%)), 143 (20.8%) in 50–75% of cases, 62 (9.0%) in 25–50% and only 33 (4.8%) invasive cardiologists were using RA in <25% of all PCIs. Operators with the highest proficiency in RA were associated with increased risk of periprocedural death, stroke and bleeding complications at access site during angiography via FA. Similarly, higher prevalence of periprocedural mortality during PCI with FA was observed in most experienced radial operators as compared to other groups. The detrimental effect of FA utilization by the most experienced radial operators was observed in both stable angina and acute coronary syndromes. Higher experience and utilization of RA might be linked to worse outcomes of PCIs performed via femoral artery in both stable and acute settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]