Search

More than 1 million transcatheter-based cardiovascular procedures across the spectrum of interventional cardiology are performed annually in the United States. With the expanded indications for and increased complexities associated with these procedures, interventional cardiologists are expected to possess the requisite expertise to complete these interventions safely and effectively. While the art of vascular access and closure remains a prerequisite and critical skillset in contemporary practice, there remain significant variations in the techniques employed, resulting in the bleeding and vascular complications encountered in clinical practice. With an increasing recognition of the potential merits to standardized approaches to vascular access and closure, cardiovascular societies have put forth recommendations around best practices for performing these procedures in the cardiac catheterization laboratories. In this review, we aim to: (1) Examine the evolving definitions of bleeding and vascular complications; (2) Review best practices for transradial and transfemoral access and closure, including for large bore procedures; and (3) Highlight knowledge gaps and proposed areas of clinical research pertaining to vascular access which may inform clinical practice and potentially optimize the outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter-based cardiac and vascular interventions.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and hemodynamically complex syndrome with a broad spectrum of etiologies and clinical presentations. Despite contemporary therapies, CS continues to maintain high morbidity and mortality ranging from 35 to 50%. More recently, burgeoning observational research in this field aimed at enhancing the early recognition and characterization of the shock state through standardized team-based protocols, comprehensive hemodynamic profiling, and tailored and selective utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices has been associated with improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the pathophysiology of CS, novel phenotypes, evolving definitions and staging systems, currently available pharmacologic and device-based therapies, standardized, team-based management protocols, and regionalized systems-of-care aimed at improving shock outcomes. We also explore opportunities for fertile investigation through randomized and non-randomized studies to address the prevailing knowledge gaps that will be critical to improving long-term outcomes.

Background Distal transradial access (dTRA) is an alternative to conventional forearm transradial access (fTRA) for coronary angiography (CAG). Differences in healing of the radial artery (RA) in the forearm have not been evaluated between these 2 access strategies. We sought to compare the mean difference in forearm RA intimal‐medial thickening (IMT) in patients randomized to dTRA versus fTRA. Methods and Results In this single‐center randomized clinical trial, 64 patients undergoing nonemergent CAG were randomized (1:1) to dTRA versus fTRA. Ultra–high‐resolution (55‐MHz) vascular ultrasound of the forearm and distal RA was performed pre‐CAG and at 90 days. The primary end point was the mean change in forearm RA IMT. Secondary end points included procedural characteristics, vascular injury, RA occlusion, and ipsilateral hand pain and function. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, mean forearm RA IMT, and procedural specifics were similar between the dTRA and fTRA cohorts. There was no difference in mean change in forearm RA IMT between the 2 cohorts (0.07 versus 0.07 mm; P=0.37). No RA occlusions or signs of major vascular injury were observed at 90 days. Ipsilateral hand pain and function (Borg pain scale score: 12 versus 11; P=0.24; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulders, and Hand scale score: 6 versus 8; P=0.46) were comparable. Conclusions Following CAG, dTRA was associated with no differences in mean change of forearm RA IMT, hand pain, and function versus fTRA for CAG. Further investigation is warranted to elucidate mechanisms and predictors of RA healing and identify effective strategies to preserving RA integrity for repeated procedures. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04801901.

Coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) are present in up to one-third of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). It is thus essential for all clinical cardiologists to possess a basic awareness and understanding of CTOs, including optimal evaluation and management. While percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for CTO lesions has many similarities to non-CTO PCI, there are important considerations pertaining to pre-procedural evaluation, interventional techniques, procedural complications, and post-procedure management and follow-up unique to patients undergoing this highly specialized intervention. Distinct from other existing topical reviews, the current manuscript focuses on key knowledge relevant to non-interventional cardiologists.