Percutaneous angioplasty at previous radial puncture site via distal radial access of anatomical snuffbox.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bae DH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8084399 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Percutaneous angioplasty at previous radial puncture site via distal radial access of anatomical snuffbox.
Bae Dae-Hwan DH Lee Sang Yeub SY Lee Dae In DI Kim Sang Min SM Bae Jang-Whan JW Hwang Kyeong-Kuk KK
Cardiology journal 20190101 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:In an effort to refine transcatheter vascular interventions, radial artery access has moved more distally at the anatomical snuffbox. Here, more challenges appear as the artery is smaller, more angulated, and more difficult to palpate. Including ultrasound guidance as a mandatory step during puncture may encourage more operators to switch to this approach. In the femoral approach, ultrasound guidance is strongly recommended because of bleeding complications, whereas in the proximal (conventional) radial approach, the role of ultrasound remains optional, and in current practice, almost all cases are performed by palpation of the pulse only. However, in distal radial access, the situation is different because the artery differs in caliber and position, and imaging can help the operator for a clean puncture, especially since repeated punctures are not only painful but also any hematoma formation leads to the complete compression of the artery and failure of access. The aim of this review is to investigate the rationale of vascular ultrasound during distal radial access and to establish some techniques and anatomical landmarks for the ultrasonographic exploration of the dorsal area of the hand.
| S-EPMC9866992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe previous meta-analysis has assessed that distal transradial access (dTRA) in anatomical snuffbox is safe and effective for coronary angiography and intervention and can reduce radial artery occlusion. However, since the publication of the previous meta-analysis, several observational studies have been added, so we performed an updated meta-analysis to include more eligible studies to compare distal transradial access in anatomical snuffbox with conventional transradial access (cTRA).MethodPubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies from the literature published until 5 January 2021 to evaluate catheterization/puncture failure, hematoma, radial artery spasm, radial artery occlusion (RAO), access time, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose area product, total procedure time, and hemostatic device removal time. The pooled odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively.ResultsA total of 9,054 patients from 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis, and we found no significant difference in catheterization/puncture failure (OR = 1.94, 95CI [0.97, 3.86], P=0.06), hematoma (OR = 0.97, 95CI [0.55, 1.73], P=0.926), radial artery spasm (OR = 0.76, 95CI [0.43, 1.36], P=0.354), total procedure time (SMD = 0.23, 95CI [-0.21, 0.68], P=0.308), or radiation dose area product (WMD = 216.88 Gy/cm2, 95CI [-126.24, 560.00], P=0.215), but dTRA had a lower incidence of RAO (OR = 0.39, 95CI [0.23, 0.66], P < 0.001), shorter hemostatic device removal time (WMD = -66.62 min, 95CI [-76.68, -56.56], P < 0.001), longer access time (SMD = 0.32, 95CI [0.08, 0.56], P=0.008), and longer fluoroscopy time (SMD = 0.16, 95CI [-0.00, 0.33], P=0.05) than cTRA.ConclusionCompared with the cTRA, the dTRA has a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion and shorter hemostatic device removal time, which is worthy of further evaluation in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8321763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study investigated the safety and efficacy of coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via distal transradial artery access (d-TRA).MethodsFor this single-centre prospective cohort study, a total of 1066 patients who underwent CAG or PCI procedures from September 2019 to November 2020 were included. Patients were divided into two groups: the d-TRA group (346) and the conventional transradial artery access (c-TRA) group (720) based on access site. A total of 342 pairs of patients were successfully matched using propensity score matching (PSM) for subsequent analysis.ResultsNo significant differences in puncture success rate, procedural method, procedural time, sheath size, contrast dosage or fluoroscopy time were noted between the two groups. The puncture time in the d-TRA group was longer than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01), and the procedure success rate was lower than that in the c-TRA group (90.94% vs. 96.49%, P = 0.01). The haemostasis time in the d-TRA group was shorter than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01), and the visual analogue scale (VAS) was lower than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01). In addition, the prevalence of bleeding and haematoma in the d-TRA group was lower than that in the c-TRA group (1.75% vs. 7.31%, P < 0.01; 0.58% vs. 3.22%, P = 0.01, respectively). No significant difference in the incidence of numbness was noted between the two groups. No other complications were found in two groups.Conclusiond-TRA is as safe and effective as c-TRA for CAG and PCI. It has the advantages of improved comfort and fewer complications. Trail registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900026519.
| S-EPMC8892764 | 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:The radial artery access site laceration is rare. We hereby described a case of radial artery access site laceration during retrieval of a cutting balloon. The bleeding site was not responsive to hemostatic maneuvers such as application of an external blood pressure cuff, balloon inflation, and an external compression bandage and was eventually coil embolized. Sacrifice using endovascular coiling averted surgical ligation which was the alternative.
| S-EPMC6600103 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8086675 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo evaluate safety and efficacy of distal right radial access (DRRA) compared to right radial access (RRA), for coronary procedures, in patients with smaller diameter radial arteries (SDRA) (radial artery diameter (RAD) < 2.1 mm).Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective analysis of safety and efficacy of DRRA Vs. RRA in patients undergoing coronary procedures at our cardiac catheterization laboratories over a 10- month period between September 2017 and June, 2018 (first 5 calendar months with RRA-first; next 5 calendar months with DRRA-first). All patients underwent pre-procedure ultrasound of arm arteries. All patients had RAD<2.1 mm (mean RAD 1.63 ± 0.27 mm; RAD≤1.6 mm in 73.5%). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Primary end-point of puncture success was significantly lower in DRRA vs RRA group [79.5% vs 98.5%, p < 0.0001]. Puncture success was also lower in the subgroup of patients with RAD <1.6 mm Vs. ≥ 1.6 mm in the DRRA group (p < 0.0001). The secondary end-point of puncture time was significantly higher (2.1 ± 1.4 min vs. 1.0 ± 0.45 min, p < 0.00001) in the DRRA Vs. RRA group. The occurrence of vascular access site complications (including access site hematomas), radial artery occlusion (RAO) and distal RAO at day 1 and day 30 were similar between RRA and DRRA groups.Non-vascular access-site complication was seen only in the DRRA group.ConclusionDRRA is a safe and effective access for coronary procedures; though technically challenging in patients with SDRA (RAD<2.1 mm; mean RAD 1.63 ± 0.27 mm), with lower puncture success and higher puncture time compared to RRA.
| S-EPMC7961259 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7007181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI), which approach has lower vascular access site complications between the open puncture (OP) and percutaneous puncture (PP) approaches is still controversial. Moreover, few studies have analyzed risk factors for vascular access site complications in TF-TAVI. This study aimed to compare vascular access site complications between the OP and PP approaches in patients undergoing TF-TAVI and access risk factors for vascular access site complications.MethodsThree hundred fifty-one patients who underwent TF-TAVI via the PP (n=251) and OP (n=100) were retrospectively examined.ResultsIncidence of vascular access site complications was 7.0% in the OP group and 8.4% in the PP group (P=0.828). Two deaths from vascular access site complications occurred in the PP group. After performing inverse probability weighting (IPW), regression analysis showed that PP was associated with a significantly higher odds of vascular access site complications [odds ratio =2.033; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.397-2.958; P<0.001]. Common femoral artery (CFA) depth (hazard ratio =1.04; 95% CI: 1.000-1.070; P=0.045) and sheath/CFA diameter ratio (hazard ratio =971; 95% CI: 22.6-41,700; P<0.001) were independent complication risk factors. In patients with CFA depth ≥35 mm, the incidence of vascular access site complications was higher with PP than OP. Sheath/CFA diameter ratio ≥0.9 was associated with increased risk of vascular injury with both approaches.ConclusionsThe incidence of vascular access site complications in patients undergoing TF-TAVI was significantly lower with OP than PP after IPW. OP may be preferable when CFA depth is ≥35 mm. When the sheath/CFA diameter ratio is ≥0.9, approaches other than the TF approach should be considered.
| S-EPMC10713323 | biostudies-literature
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