101. Is the radial artery suitable for recatheterization?
- Author
-
C. M. Santos, Maria Salomé Carvalho, Hélder Pereira, Rui Campante Teles, Rita Calé, M Mendes, Pedro de Araújo Gonçalves, H. Vinhas, Luís Raposo, and Manuel de Sousa Almeida
- Subjects
Body surface area ,medicine.medical_specialty ,business.industry ,Confidence interval ,Surgery ,Interquartile range ,Statistical significance ,medicine.artery ,Conventional PCI ,Occlusion ,Introducer sheath ,Medicine ,Radial artery ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business - Abstract
Purpose: Transradial approach (TRA) has become increasingly common for coronary angiography and intervention (CA/PCI) and a wealth of knowledge exists about its feasibility. Nevertheless radial injury and occlusion do occur and little is known about the success rate with its repeated use. Evidence of a long lasting use of the TRA might encourage a shift toward this access route. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a second TRA its predictors of failure. Methods: In a dual centre prospective registry, patients who underwent a first procedure by right TRA were identified. Whenever a second coronary angiography was necessary during follow-up, and the interventionalist's clinical assessment was favourable, the right TRA was again used. We compared the rates of crossover to another access and sought predictors of crossover. Results: From January 2009 to October 2012, 6392 patients (median age 66, interquartile range 16; 67% male; 37% due to ACS) who underwent a first procedure (36% PCI) by right TRA were identified; the crossover rate to another access was 5.8%. During the study period, a second TRA was performed in 686 of these patients in whom the interventionalist's clinical assessment was favourable; the crossover rate to another access was 6.9% and similar to the first TRA (Chi-square p=0.267). Three independent predictors of failure in the latter group were identified by binary logistic regression, with the following adjusted odds-ratio (95% confidence interval): female sex 3.67 (1.98-6.8), use of 10 cm (vs. 25 cm) introducer sheath 3.52 (1.73-7.16) and previous valvular surgery 3.02 (1.06-8.61). No differences with statistical significance were observed regarding advanced age, low body surface area, need for intervention or smaller sheath diameter. Conclusions: A second transradial approach is as feasible as the first. The use of shorter sheaths, female sex and previous valvular surgery patients reduce success in subsequent radial access.
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF