Trans-radial approach versus trans-femoral approach in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Trans-Distal Radial Artery Carotid Revascularization with Forearm Flow Reversal: An Alternative Option of CAS in the TCAR Era

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an alternative to carotid artery stenting (CAS). TCAR demonstrated its superiority by avoiding femoral artery puncture and establishing proximal protection without crossing the stenotic lesion. In the TCAR era, we focused on the possibility of a trans-distal radial approach (DRA). A balloon-guide catheter was navigated via DRA to establish proximal protection before lesion crossing. The forearm subcutaneous vein was used as the flow-reversal circuit.

METHODS

Six internal carotid artery stenosis patients underwent CAS using "the forearm flow reversal technique." Every procedure was performed under continuous flow reversal from the common carotid artery to the forearm cephalic vein.

RESULTS

Successful revascularization was achieved without ischemic or access-site complications. The distal radial artery was patent at discharge in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Trans-distal radial CAS with forearm flow reversal is a feasible and less invasive technical option.

Is single-catheter technique for coronary angiography an optimal tool for beginners in interventional cardiology?-randomized controlled study TRACT 2: Transradial Coronary Angiography Trial 2

Background

Transradial coronary angiography can be performed using a dual-catheter technique (DCT) or single-catheter technique (SCT). The current study aimed to compare DxTerity SCT Ultra and the Trapease curve SCT catheters with DCT catheters in procedures performed by young, less experienced, interventional cardiologists.

Methods

For this prospective, single-blinded, randomized study 107 were enrolled and assigned to 1 of 3 groups. They underwent planned coronary angiography at the Second Department of Cardiology Jagiellonian University in Kraków. In groups 1 (n=37) and 2 (n=35), DxTerity SCT Ultra catheters and the Trapease curve were used, respectively. In control group 3 (n=35), standard DCT Judkins catheters were applied. One patient was excluded from group 2, bringing the total number of cases analysed to 106. The study endpoints comprised the percentage of optimal stability, proper ostial artery engagement, a good quality angiogram, the duration of each procedure stage, the amount of contrast and the radiation dose.

Results

The highest percentage of optimal stability was observed in group 1 for the right coronary artery (RCA): 94%, and in group 3, for the left coronary artery (LCA): 85%. The necessity to change the catheter was most common in group 2. Group 1 was characterised by a shorter total procedural time. The contrast volume was higher in group 2, while there were no differences in radiation dose.

Conclusions

SCT is at least as adequate as DCT for young cardiologists. SCT was associated with lower necessity of catheter exchange during RCA visualization. The DxTerity Ultra curve catheter allows shortening the total procedure time.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During PCI in NSTEMI: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Large Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

The benefit:risk profile of bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. Study-level meta-analyses lack granularity to provide conclusive answers. We sought to compare the outcomes of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in all 5 trials that randomized ≥1000 patients with any myocardial infarction undergoing PCI to bivalirudin versus heparin (MATRIX [Minimizing Adverse Hemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox], VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART [Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial], ISAR-REACT 4 [Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 4], ACUITY [Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy], and BRIGHT [Bivalirudin in Acute Myocardial Infarction vs Heparin and GPI Plus Heparin Trial]). The primary effectiveness and safety end points were 30-day all-cause mortality and serious bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 12 155 patients were randomized: 6040 to bivalirudin (52.3% with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion), and 6115 to heparin (53.2% with planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between bivalirudin and heparin (1.2% versus 1.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.86-1.79]; P=0.25). Cardiac mortality, reinfarction, and stent thrombosis rates were also not significantly different. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding (both access site-related and non-access site-related) compared with heparin (3.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72; P<0.0001). Outcomes were consistent regardless of use of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion or routine lycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use with heparin and during 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin and heparin did not result in significantly different rates of mortality or ischemic events, including stent thrombosis and reinfarction. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding compared with heparin arising both from the access site and nonaccess sites.

Short-term risk of periprocedural stroke relative to radial vs. femoral access: systematic review, meta-analysis, study sequential analysis and meta-regression of 2,188,047 real-world cardiac catheterizations

OBJECTIVES

To verify whether transradial (TRA) compared to transfemoral (TFA) cardiac catheterization reduces the risk of periprocedural stroke (PS).

METHODS

We reviewed (CRD42021277918) published real-world cohorts reporting the incidence of PS within 3 days following diagnostic or interventional catheterization. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions of odds ratios (OR) performed using the DerSimonian and Laird method were checked for publication bias (Egger test) and adjusted for false-positive results (study sequential analysis SSA).

RESULTS

The pooled incidence of PS from 2,188,047 catheterizations (14 cohorts), was 193 (105 to 355) per 100,000. Meta-analyses of adjusted estimates (OR = 0.66 (0.49 to 0.89); p = 0.007; I² = 90%), unadjusted estimates (OR = 0.63 (0.51 to 0.77; I² = 74%; p = 0.000)), and a sub-group of prospective cohorts (OR = 0.67 (0.48 to 0.94; p = 0.022; I² = 16%)) had a lower risk of PS in TRA (without indication of publication bias). SSA confirmed the pooled sample size was sufficient to support these conclusions. Meta-regression decreased the unexplained heterogeneity but did not identify any independent predictor of PS nor any effect modifier.

CONCLUSION

Periprocedural stroke remains a rare and hard-to-predict adverse event associated with cardiac catheterization. TRA is associated with a 20% to 30% lower risk of PS in real-world/common practice settings. Future studies are unlikely to change our conclusion.