Transradial approach in the catheterization laboratory: Pros/cons and suggestions for successful implementation

Comparison of Frequency of Bleeding and Major Adverse Cardiac Events After Transradial Versus Transfemoral Intervention in the Recent Antiplatelet Era

The transradial approach is increasingly used for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and we therefore aimed to compare the clinical outcomes after transradial intervention (TRI) and transfemoral intervention (TFI) in all patients undergoing PCI. Among 6,973 patients enrolled in a nationwide, prospective, multicenter registry (February 2013 to September 2013), 1,860 underwent TRI (n = 1,445, 77.7%) and TFI (n = 415, 22.3%). Bleeding and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, or stent thrombosis) were compared. Bleeding occurred in 42 patients (2.3%) and was significantly less likely in the TRI versus TFI group (overall cohort: 1.5% vs 4.8%, p = 0.001; propensity score-matched: n = 728, 2.7% vs 5.2%, p = 0.048). Multivariate regression revealed that TRI was negatively associated with bleeding (odds ratio 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.83, p = 0.013). MACE occurred in 152 patients (8.2%). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed higher MACE-free survival rates in the TRI versus TFI group (overall cohort: 93.3% vs 86.7%, log-rank p = 0.026; propensity score-matched: 91.8% vs 86.5%, log-rank p = 0.04). Cox proportional analysis demonstrated that TRI independently predicted improved MACE (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91, p = 0.024). In conclusion, TRI is associated with reduced bleeding rates and better clinical outcomes than TFI in all patients undergoing PCI.

Heparins crossover in percutaneous coronary interventions: a real issue with increasing rate of transradial procedures?

AIMS

Current guidelines give a class III recommendation to the intraprocedural use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients pretreated with enoxaparin. The aim of our study was to evaluate bleeding complications in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed using intraprocedural crossover of heparin therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated all PCIs performed at two Italian hospitals since January 2011 to December 2013. After a propensity-matched analysis, patients were divided into two groups (with a ratio 1 : 2) according to intraprocedural crossover of heparins (from enoxaparin to UFH) (Group 1) or intraprocedural UFH alone (Group 2). The primary end-point was a haemoglobin drop of at least 3 g/dl within 48 h after the procedure.

RESULTS

During the 3 years analysed, 3224 patients underwent PCI, and after the propensity analysis, 309 patients were considered eligible for our study: 104 patients in Group 1 (69 ± 12 years, 78% men) and 205 patients in Group 2 (69 ± 13 years, 80% men, P = NS). There were no significant differences between the two groups for BMI, periprocedural use of antiplatelet therapy, baseline haemoglobin haematocrit or platelets levels. The primary end-point did not differ between the two groups (2.9% in Group 1 and 3.4% in Group 2, P = 0.550). Also, nadir of haematocrit or haemoglobin levels did not differ between the two groups. Finally, in hospital, major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events did not differ between the two groups (1.9% in Group 1 and 3.9% in Group 2, P = 0.50).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis of a large PCI database, the 'heparins crossover' during PCI was not associated with increased bleeding risk.

Design and Rationale of the Femoral Closure versus Radial Compression Devices Related to Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (FERARI) Study

BACKGROUND

Bleeding events after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are associated with patients’ age, gender, and the presence of chronic kidney disease, antithrombotic treatment, as well as arterial access site. Patients being treated by PCI using radial access site are associated with an improved prognosis. However, the safety of femoral closure devices has never been compared to radial compression devices following PCI. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of femoral closure compared to radial compression devices in patients treated by PCI envisaging access site bleedings as well as short- and long-term prognostic outcomes.

METHODS

The Femoral Closure versus Radial Compression Devices Related to Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (FERARI) study is a single-center observational study comparing 400 consecutive patients undergoing PCI either using radial compression devices (TR Band™) or femoral closure devices (Angio-Seal™) at the corresponding access site. The primary outcome consists of the occurrence of vascular complications at the arterial access site, including major bleedings as defined by common classification systems. Secondary outcomes consist of the occurrence of adverse cardiac events, including all-cause mortality, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization during 30 days and 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Study enrollment was initiated in February 2014. The enrollment phase is expected to last until May 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

The FERARI study intends to comparatively evaluate the safety and prognostic outcome of patients being treated by radial or femoral arterial closure devices following PCI during daily clinical practice.

Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Coronary Angiography: A Matched Pair Analysis of Cath Lab Equipment Costs

Introduction

There is an ongoing struggle to understand the potential economic benefits that radial access may offer. Cost savings are thought to primarily occur after the procedure. The aim of our study was to analyze cath lab expenses resulting from transradial (TRA) and transfemoral approaches (TFA).

Methods

A total of n = 1890 matched pairs of patients were analyzed. A traditional Judkins catheter strategy was pursued for coronary angiography. Three large databases were merged to collect and compare procedural data as material, medication costs and fluoroscopy time.

Results

Compared to TFA diagnostic catheterization from TRA was associated with significantly lower procedural costs (€181.0 versus €167.5; p<0.001). Extra costs in TFA were primarily produced by frequent use of vascular closure devices (VCDs) in 86% of patients. However, the potential saving amount related to VCD use was only partly realized due to the higher number of extra catheters (0.53 ± 0.9 versus 0.23 ± 0.6; p<0.001) and hydrophilic guidewires (0.088 ± 0.3 versus 0.014 ± 0.1; p<0.001) used in TRA. Weak correlations were observed between the total number of cases and fluoroscopy time (r = −0.13; p<0.001) as well as material costs (r = 0.31; p<0.001).

Conclusions

Significant cost savings can be realized by TRA at the procedural level even when adhering to a conventional Judkins catheter strategy. Hydrophilic guidewires and additional catheters are the main cost drivers in TRA. In contrast to fluoroscopy time material costs steadily increase during the early stage of the TRA learning curve.

Radial versus femoral approach comparison in percutaneous coronary intervention with intraaortic balloon pump support: the RADIAL PUMP UP registry

BACKGROUND

The role of intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in high-risk acute patients remains debated. Device-related complications and the more complex patient management could explain such lack of clinical benefit. We aimed to assess the impact of transradial versus transfemoral access for PCI requiring IABP support on vascular complications and clinical outcome.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 321 consecutive patients receiving IABP support during transfemoral (n = 209) or transradial (n = 112) PCI. Thirty-day net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (composite of postprocedural bleeding, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stroke) were the primary end point, with access-related bleeding and hospital stay as secondary end points.

RESULTS

Cardiogenic shock and hemodynamic instability were the most common indications for IABP support. Cumulative 30-day NACE rate was 50.2%, whereas an access site-related bleeding occurred in 14.3%. Patients undergoing transfemoral PCI had a higher unadjusted rate of NACEs when compared with the transradial group (57.4% vs 36.6%, P < .01), mainly due more access-related bleedings (18.7% vs 6.3%, P < .01). Such increased risk of NACEs was confirmed after propensity score adjustment (hazard ratio 0.57 [0.4-0.9], P = .007), whereas hospital stay appeared comparable in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational registry, high-risk patients undergoing PCI and requiring IABP support appeared to have fewer NACEs if transradial access was used instead of transfemoral, mainly due to fewer access-related bleedings. Given the inherent limitations of this retrospective work, including the inability to adjust for unknown confounders, further controlled studies are warranted to confirm or refute these findings.