Predictors of patent and occlusive hemostasis after transradial coronary procedures

Radial artery occlusion after conventional and distal radial access: Impact of preserved flow and time-to-hemostasis in a propensity-score matching analysis of 1163 patients

OBJECTIVES

To compare incidence of forearm radial artery occlusion (RAO) and hemostasis characteristics between distal and conventional transradial approach (DRA and TRA, respectively).

BACKGROUND

DRA has the potential advantage of reducing RAO. DRA effectively reduces time-to-hemostasis, however its role on preserving flow in the radial artery (PF) during hemostasis and consequent impact on RAO remains speculative.

METHODS

Eight hundred thirty-seven patients with TRA were previously enrolled in a prospective registry investigating the relationship of residual anticoagulation and RAO. Three hundred twenty-six additional patients with DRA were added to the cohort and matched to the original cohort by propensity score. The composite end-point of RAO at forearm and distal site of puncture (dRAO) was evaluated as secondary end-point.

RESULTS

RAO occurred in 4.8% (41 of 837) of patients undergoing TRA and in 0% (0 of 326) of those undergoing DRA (p < 0.0001). DRA was associated with higher percentage of PF (97.2% vs. 78.5% in TRA group, p < 0.0001) and reduced time-to-hemostasis (147 ± 99 min vs. 285 ± 138 min, p < 0.0001). After matching, hemostasis characteristics were still significant different (PF 95.7% vs. 90.1%, p = 0.023, and 190 ± 92 vs. 323 ± 162 min, p < 0.0001) with reduction in the incidence of RAO (0 of 213, 0% vs. 7 of 213, 3.3%, p = 0.0015). dRAO occurred in one case (0.3% and 0.5% after matching, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.032 compared to TRA).

CONCLUSIONS

DRA was associated with lower rates of RAO compared to TRA. This effect is potentially explained by reduced time-to-hemostasis and maintained flow at the wrist during hemostasis.

Patent hemostasis of radial artery: Comparison of two methods

BACKGROUND

Radial artery obstruction is the most common complication of coronary angiography performed via transradial access. Patent hemostasis can significantly reduce the risk of radial artery occlusion. Previous studies utilized sophisticated methods to evaluate radial artery patency. Simplified and easily applicable methods for successful patent hemostasis are currently lacking.

AIM

To determine which method (pulse oximeter vs the traditional radial artery palpation) is better to achieve patent hemostasis.

METHODS

This prospective, single center study included 299 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention between November 2017 and July 2019. Patients less than 18 years old, with a history of radial artery disease, or no palpable artery pulse were excluded from the study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. In the first group, radial artery flow was assessed by palpation of the artery during hemostasis (traditional method). In the second group, radial artery patency was estimated with the use of a pulse oximeter. Two different compression devices were used for hemostasis (air chamber and pressure valve). The primary study endpoint was the achievement of successful patent hemostasis.

RESULTS

The two groups (pulse oximeter vs artery palpation) had no significant differences in age, sex, body mass index, risk factors, or comorbidities except for supraventricular arrhythmias. The percentage of patients with successful patent hemostasis was significantly higher in the pulse oximeter group (82.2% vs 68.1%, P = 0.005). A lower percentage of patients with spasm was recorded in the pulse oximeter group (9.9% vs 19.0%, P = 0.024). The incidence of local complications, edema, bleeding, hematoma, vagotonia, or pain did not differ between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, the use of a pulse oximeter (OR: 2.35, 95%CI: 1.34-4.13, P = 0.003) and advanced age (OR: 1.04, 95%CI: 1.01-1.07, P = 0.006), were independently associated with an increased probability of successful patent hemostasis. The type of hemostatic device did not affect patent hemostasis (P = 0.450).

CONCLUSION

Patent hemostasis with the use of pulse oximeter is a simple, efficient, and safe method that is worthy of further investigation. Larger randomized studies are required to consider its clinical implications.