Transradial Approach for Left Ventricular Endomyocardial Biopsy

Enhancing Diagnostic Precision: Intracardiac Echocardiography-Guided Endomyocardial Biopsy for Complex Right Atrial Mass

An 80-year-old woman with a history of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma presented to the emergency department with exertional dyspnea and lower limb edema. A transthoracic echocardiogram revealed a large extracardiac mass invading the right atrium. A diagnostic transcatheter endomyocardial biopsy guided by intracardiac echocardiography was performed. This case highlights the role of intracardiac echocardiography in enabling unusual endomyocardial biopsy targeting, allowing for correct positioning of the bioptome, adding to the procedure's safety and precision, mainly when performed on atrial masses.

Is This the Prime Time for Transradial Access Left Ventricular Endomyocardial Biopsy?

Left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is an essential tool in the management of myocarditis and is conventionally performed via transfemoral access (TFA). Transradial access EMB (TRA-EMB) is a novel alternative and the authors sought to determine its safety and feasibility by conducting a systematic review of the literature. Medline was searched in 2020, and cohort demographics, procedural details and complications were extracted from selected studies. Four observational studies with a combined total of 496 procedures were included. TRA-EMB was most frequently performed with a sheathless MP1 guide catheter via the right radial artery. The most common complication was pericardial effusion (up to 11% in one study), but pericardial drainage for tamponade was rare (one reported case). Death and mitral valve damage have not been reported. TRA-EMB was successful in obtaining samples in 99% of reported procedures. The authors concluded that TRA-EMB is a safe and feasible alternative to TFA-EMB and the most common complication is uncomplicated pericardial effusion.

Transradial left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy feasibility, safety and clinical usefulness: Initial experience of a tertiary university center

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Over the last decade, several studies have suggested that left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy is safer and has a higher diagnostic yield than transvenous right ventricular biopsy. In addition, recent publications indicate that the transradial approach is a feasible and safe alternative to the transfemoral approach for sampling the left ventricle. We report our initial experience with transradial endomyocardial biopsy with regards to feasibility, safety and usefulness.

METHODS

Single-center registry of consecutive patients undergoing intended transradial left endomyocardial biopsy. Clinical and technical data were collected prospectively, with a particular focus on success rate and complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were screened for left ventricle biopsy. Twenty (25) were selected for an intended transradial approach (mean age 51±18 years old, 22 male). Success rate was 100% with no crossover to femoral approach. There were no major complications. Two patients experienced mild radial spasm. One of them also had a run of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia. Indication for biopsy was either myocarditis or cardiomyopathy of unknown etiology. The final diagnosis was acute lymphocytic myocarditis in five patients, chronic myocarditis in one patient, amyloid light-chain amyloidosis in four patients and transthyretin amyloidosis in six patients. Myocarditis was ruled out in eight patients and amyloidosis in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Transradial left ventricle endomyocardial biopsy is a very safe and feasible method of sampling the myocardium for histopathological analysis, with a good diagnostic yield and clinically meaningful results in properly selected patients.

Radial versus femoral approach for saphenous vein grafts angiography and interventions

BACKGROUND

Coronary angiography and intervention to saphenous venous grafts (SVGs) remain challenging. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of the radial approach compared to femoral access in a large cohort of patients undergoing SVG angiography and intervention.

METHODS

Data from 1,481 patients from Canada, United States, and Spain who underwent procedures between 2010 and 2016 were collected. Patients must have undergone SVG coronary angiography and/or intervention. Demographics, procedural data, and in-hospital complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Procedures were undertaken by either the radial (n = 863, 211 intervention) or femoral (n = 618, 260 intervention) approach. The mean number of SVGs per patient was similar between groups (radial 2.3 ± 0.7 vs femoral 2.6 ± 1.1, P = .61), but the radial group required a fewer number of catheters (2.6 ± 1.7 vs 4.1 ± 1.1, P < .001). Fluoroscopy time was comparable between groups, and there was a trend toward lower contrast volume in the radial group (P = .045). Overall, the total dose of heparin was significantly higher in the radial group (P < .001); however, radial patients experienced significantly less access-site bleeding complications (P < .001). Outpatients undergoing radial SVG interventions had a higher likelihood of a same-day discharge home (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Radial access for SVG angiography and intervention is safe and feasible, without increasing fluoroscopy time. In experienced centers, radial access was associated with fewer catheters used, lower contrast volume, and lower rate of vascular access-site bleeding complications. Moreover, outpatients undergoing SVG percutaneous coronary intervention though the radial approach had a higher likelihood of a same-day discharge home.