Successful coronary angiography via distal radial access in an 82-year-old male patient with polydactyly.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kim KH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10790034 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Successful coronary angiography via distal radial access in an 82-year-old male patient with polydactyly.
Kim Kang Hee KH Lee Bong-Ki BK Seo Jeong Hun JH Chun Kwang Jin KJ Cho Byung-Ryul BR
The Korean journal of internal medicine 20230926 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe radial approach is now recommended as the default strategy in diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the most common complication that limits subsequent angiographic procedures through this access. Recently, distal radial access (DRA) has been recommended as an alternative access site. Despite lower RAO rates in DRA in some recent clinical trials, concerns remain regarding possible complications and limitations due to the small size of the distal radial artery.ObjectiveThe present study aimed to compare traditional radial access (TRA) and DRA concerning RAO in percutaneous coronary procedures.MethodsIn the present prospective cohort study, percutaneous coronary procedures were performed via DRA or TRA in 2 study groups. All consecutive participants underwent DRA from September 2021 to March 2022 and TRA from April 2022 to June 2022. Ultrasonography was performed preprocedurally in the DRA group, and patients with small distal artery diameters (<2 mm) were excluded. The same 6-Fr sheaths and standard air-filled compression devices were used in both groups. The primary endpoint was RAO in ultrasound sonography on the first postprocedural day, and the secondary endpoints were the success rate, access time, angiography time, radial artery spasms, and vascular access complications.ResultsA total of 298 patients were assigned to the DRA group and 278 to the TRA group. The RAO rate was significantly higher in the TRA group than in the DRA group (10.1 % vs 0.9 %; P = 0.0001; OR, 0.08, 95 % CI, 0.01-0.27). The success rate was significantly higher in the TRA group (96 % vs 90.2 %; P = 0.009). Access crossovers were done on 12 patients (4.0 %) in the TRA group and 24 patients (9.8 %) in the DRA group (P < 0.001). The mean access time was significantly lower in the TRA group than in the DRA group (1.9 min vs 2.9 min; P < 0.001). The mean angiography time did not significantly differ between the groups (10.2 min in the TRA group vs 9.9 min in the DRA group). The rate of radial artery spasms was not significantly different between the 2 groups (13.8 % in the TRA group vs 14.5 % in the DRA group). The rates of access site hematoma (12.4 % vs 2.3 %; P < 0.001) and bleeding (10.7 % vs 4.1; P = 0.005) were significantly higher in the TRA group.ConclusionsDRA was safe and feasible with lower rates of RAO and access site complications than TRA. Thus, it could be used as an alternative approach in percutaneous coronary procedures. However, the trade-off for these advantages of DRA is an increase in cross-over rate, and a decrease in puncture success rate.
| S-EPMC11535977 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDistal 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 resultsIn 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.ConclusionsFollowing 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.RegistrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04801901.
| S-EPMC11010068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To share our experience with the left distal radial approach for transradial coronary angiography and interventions. By performing the radial puncture in the fossa radialis or the so called anatomical "Snuffbox" we aimed to present the feasibility and complications of this new technique. METHODS:Left distal radial artery was used as an access site in 54 patients admitted to our clinic for coronary angiography and intervention between May 25th and October 20th 2017. All of them had pulse in their left distal radial artery. In the laboratory, they had their left arm gently flexed at the shoulder so that the hand was placed over their right groin. The operator stood on the right side of the patient and performed coronary angiography and interventions. During the hospital stay, demographic features and complications were recorded. RESULTS:Mean age of patients was 59.3 years and 80% were male. We used Judkins 6 French catheters for the procedures. Seventeen patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome. They all underwent successful left distal transradial coronary angiography and intervention. Primary angioplasty was performed in 10 patients. In total, 20 patients had coronary intervention. Left anterior descending artery was the artery requiring most intervention (11 patients). Two patients experienced brachial spasm requiring crossover to right femoral artery. There were no cases of radial artery occlusion, hematoma, or hand numbness. The radial sheath was removed at procedure termination. Hemostasis was achieved with manual compression. CONCLUSION:Left distal radial approach is safe and feasible as a new technique for coronary angiography and interventions.
| S-EPMC5998856 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC514212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe aim of this study was to explore the use of prolonged occlusion flow-mediated dilatation (PO-FMD) to dilate the radial artery prior to cannulation to increase cannulation success, reduce puncture attempts and reduce access-site complications in transradial coronary angiography.Methods and resultsA total of 1,156 patients undergoing transradial coronary angiography were randomised into PO-FMD and sham PO-FMD groups. PO-FMD was achieved by a 10-minute inflation of a blood pressure cuff on the arm to above systolic pressure, followed by deflation with resultant radial artery dilation. In the sham PO-FMD group the cuff was not inflated. Operators were blinded to the intervention. Five hundred and eighty (580) patients were randomised to the sham PO-FMD group and 576 to the PO-FMD group. Cannulation failure was reduced with PO-FMD, with cannulation failure rates of 2.7% in the PO-FMD group and 5.8% in the sham PO-FMD group (p=0.01).The number of puncture attempts was reduced with the use of PO-FMD, with a median of one attempt in the PO-FMD group and two in the sham PO-FMD group (p<0.001). Radial artery pulsation loss (RAPL) was reduced with PO-FMD, with 1.4% in the PO-FMD group and 3.8% in the sham PO-FMD group (p=0.02).ConclusionsPO-FMD reduces cannulation failure rates, decreases puncture attempts, and decreases RAPL during transradial coronary angiography.
| S-EPMC9725041 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recently, coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via the distal radial access (DRA), are gaining attention owing to fewer complications. Despite the advantages of the DRA, there is difficulty to initiate this new vascular approach. The data from 1000 patients who underwent CAG and PCI via the DRA by a single experienced radial operator were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was the success rate of the DRA per 100 cases. Moreover, the predictors of the failed DRA were analyzed. Overall, 952 (95.2%) of the total 1,000 patients underwent a successful DRA. After experiencing 200 cases, the DRA success rate was well maintained at > 94%, and there was no difference in success rate per 100 cases (Ptrend = 0.216). The predictors of failure were female sex [odds ratio (OR) 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-3.39, P = 0.049] and systolic blood pressure (SBP) of < 120 mmHg (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.04-3.36, P = 0.036). For achieving a stable DRA with the success rate of > 94%, 200 procedures would be needed. Moreover, this new approach could fail in women and patients with low SBP.Trial registration: https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/index/index.do (Unique identifier: KCT0005349).
| S-EPMC8225842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPost-CABG coronary and grafts angiography (CGAG) and interventions (PCI) have historically been performed via classic transfemoral approach. Particularly for those with left internal mammary artery (LIMA) grafts, left standard transradial access (lsTRA) represents a feasible alternative, with significant fewer vascular complications, but it has ergonomic disadvantage for the operator because of the need to bend over the patients, especially in obese ones. Distal transradial access (dTRA) may provide important advantages, including shorter hemostasis and greater patient and operator comfort, mainly for left dTRA (ldTRA). We aim to describe the feasibility and safety of right and left dTRA for post-CABG CGAG and PCI.Material and methodsFrom February 2019 to April 2021, 111 consecutive post-CABG patients submitted to CGAG and/or PCI via dTRA have been enrolled.ResultsMean patient age was 67.6 years old. Most were male (88.3%) and had chronic coronary syndromes (61.3%). Overall, 35.1% had acute coronary syndromes. Distal RA was successfully punctured in all 111 patients, always without ultrasound guidance. All procedures involving LIMA grafts were done via ipsilateral ldTRA. We had only 5 (4.5%) access site crossovers. Successful dTRA sheath insertion was then achieved in 95.5% of all patients, mostly (74.8%) via ldTRA and with standard 6Fr sheath (99.1%). Distal and proximal RA pulses were palpable in all patients at hospital discharge. No major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and no major complications related to dTRA were recorded.ConclusionsdTRA for routine post-CABG CGAG and PCI by experienced transradial operators appears to be feasible. Further randomized and larger trials are needed to assure clinical benefits and safety of this new technique.
| S-EPMC8424285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResults from the Distal vs Conventional Radial Access (DISCO RADIAL) trial confirmed distal radial access (DRA) as a valid alternative to conventional transradial access, with equally low rates of radial artery occlusion (RAO), yet higher crossovers but shorter hemostasis.ObjectivesThe purpose of the study was to investigate whether patient anthropometric measures influence the effect of randomized access on key secondary outcomes.MethodsDISCO RADIAL was an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in which patients with indications for percutaneous coronary procedure using a 6-F Slender sheath were randomized to DRA (n = 650) or transradial access (n = 657) implementing best practices to reduce RAO. The primary endpoint of the trial was incidence of forearm RAO, which was extremely uncommon. Secondary endpoints, including sheath insertion time, radial artery spasm, crossover (failure to obtain access through assigned access site), hemostasis time, and access site complications, were the focus of the current analysis. Regression models (linear for continuous and logistic for binary outcomes) were used to determine whether anthropometric measures (weight, height, body mass index, and body surface area) influenced the effect of randomized access on outcomes.ResultsAcross tertiles of weight, height, body mass index, and body surface area, both before and after adjustment for sex and age, the main effect of vascular access on radial artery spasm, crossover, hemostasis time, and access site complications remained, with no significant interaction effect.ConclusionsThe results of this exploratory analysis are consistent with the main findings of the trial and support the use of DRA in all patients, regardless of anthropometric measures.
| S-EPMC11782795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Radial artery access for coronary angiography and interventions has been promoted for reducing hemostasis time and vascular complications compared with femoral access, yet it can take longer to perform and is not always successful, leading to concerns about its cost. We report a cost-benefit analysis of radial catheterization based on results from a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials.The systematic review added 5 additional randomized controlled trials to a prior review, for a total of 14 studies. Meta-analyses, following Cochrane procedures, suggested that radial catheterization significantly increased catheterization failure (OR, 4.92; 95% CI, 2.69-8.98), but reduced major complications (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.24-0.42), major bleeding (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57), and hematoma (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.48) compared with femoral catheterization. It added approximately 1.4 minutes to procedure time (95% CI, -0.22 to 2.97) and reduced hemostasis time by approximately 13 minutes (95% CI, -2.30 to -23.90). There were no differences in procedure success rates or major adverse cardiovascular events. A stochastic simulation model of per-case costs took into account procedure and hemostasis time, costs of repeating the catheterization at the alternate site if the first catheterization failed, and the inpatient hospital costs associated with complications from the procedure. Using base-case estimates based on our meta-analysis results, we found the radial approach cost $275 (95% CI, -$374 to -$183) less per patient from the hospital perspective. Radial catheterization was favored over femoral catheterization under all conditions tested.Radial catheterization was favored over femoral catheterization in our cost-benefit analysis.
| S-EPMC3430729 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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. 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. 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. 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.
| S-EPMC8156941 | biostudies-literature