Standard versus ultrasound-guided radial and femoral access in coronary angiography and intervention (SURF): a randomised controlled trial

Ultrasound Guidance for Transradial Access in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although ultrasound (US) guidance for vascular access has been widely adopted, its use for transradial access (TRA) in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory is rare. There is a perception that US guidance does not offer a clinically relevant benefit over traditional palpation-guided TRA, amplified by inconsistent findings of individual studies.

METHOD

A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library identified studies comparing US to palpation-guided TRA for cardiac catheterisation. Studies evaluating radial artery (RA) cannulation for any other reason were excluded. Event rates and risk ratios (RRs) were pooled for meta-analysis. Access failure was the primary outcome. A random-effects model was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 977 records screened, four studies with a total of 1,718 patients (861 US-guided and 864 palpation-guided procedures) were included in the meta-analysis. Most procedures were elective. The pooled analysis showed US guidance significantly lowered the risk of access failure (RR 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.97; p=0.04). Heterogeneity was moderate (I2=51.2%; p=0.105). There was a strong trend to improved first-pass success with US (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.00-1.66; p=0.05; I2=83.8%), although no differences were found in rates of difficult access (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.07-1.18; p=0.09; I2=88.3%). Salvage US guidance was successful in 30/41 (73.2%) patients following failed palpation-guided TRA. No differences were found in already low complication rates including RA spasm (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.70-1.99; p=0.53; I2=0.0%) and bleeding (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.46-3.80; p=0.60; I2=0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

US guidance was found to improve TRA success in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether routine, selective, or salvage use of US confers the most RA protection, patient satisfaction, and overall clinical benefit. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022332238).

Routine preprocedural ultrasound in palpation versus ultrasound guided radial access for cardiac catheterization

BACKGROUND

The radial first approach in cardiac catheterization is preferred for its benefits in patient comfort and recovery time. Yet, challenges persist due to characteristics like small, deep, calcified, and mobile radial arteries. Utilizing ultrasound before and during procedures can improve success rates. However, the adoption of its use is still limited and subject to debate.

AIM

To utilize routine preprocedural ultrasound (US) and compare US guided with palpation guided radial access, focusing on operator efficiency and outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consenting adult patients undergoing elective radial cardiac catheterization were divided into palpation and US groups. Routine preprocedural assessment of radial artery characteristics was performed using handheld US. Baseline data, US findings, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes were compared in 182 participants (91 in each group). US guided radial access had significantly higher first pass success rates (76.92% vs. 49.45%, p 0.0001), fewer number of attempts (1.46 ± 1 vs. 1.99 ± 1.46, p 0.004), and shorter amount of time (93.62 ± 44.04 vs. 120.44 ± 67.1, p 0.002) compared with palpation guidance. The palpation group had significantly higher incidence of spasm (15.38% vs. 3.3%, p 0.0052). Subgroup analysis indicated consistent benefits of US guidance, especially in calcified radial arteries.

CONCLUSION

This prospective, nonrandomized, single-center study demonstrated that real-time procedural US improved the operator's time and effort and enhanced patient comfort compared with palpation. US guidance use was particularly favorable in the presence of calcifications observed on baseline preoperative US.

The Impact of Geriatric Conditions in Elderly Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: A State-of-the-Art Review

The growing geriatric population presenting with coronary artery disease poses a primary challenge for healthcare services. This is a highly heterogeneous population, often underrepresented in studies and clinical trials, with distinctive characteristics that render them particularly vulnerable to standard management/approaches. In this review, we aim to summarize the available evidence on the treatment of acute coronary syndrome in the elderly. Additionally, we contextualize frailty, comorbidity, sarcopenia, and cognitive impairment, common in these patients, within the realm of coronary artery disease, proposing strategies for each case that may assist in therapeutic approaches.

Impact of Access Site on Periprocedural Bleeding and Cerebral and Coronary Events in High-Bleeding-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Findings from the RIVA-PCI Trial

INTRODUCTION

The preference for using transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) in patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is based on evidence suggesting that TRA is associated with less bleeding and fewer vascular complications, shorter hospital stays, improved quality of life, and a potential beneficial effect on mortality. We have limited study data comparing the two access routes in a patient population with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PCI, who have a particular increased risk of bleeding, while AF itself is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism.

METHODS

Using data from the RIVA-PCI registry, which includes patients with AF undergoing PCI, we analyzed a high-bleeding-risk (HBR) cohort. These patients were predominantly on oral anticoagulants (OAC) for AF, and the PCI was performed via radial or femoral access. Endpoints examined were in-hospital bleeding (BARC 2-5), cerebral events (TIA, hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke) and coronary events (stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction).

RESULTS

Out of 1636 patients, 854 (52.2%) underwent TFA, while 782 (47.8%) underwent the procedure via TRA, including nine patients with brachial artery puncture. The mean age was 75.5 years. Groups were similar in terms of age, sex distribution, AF type, cardiovascular history, risk factors, and comorbidities, except for a higher incidence of previous bypass surgeries, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 60 ml/min in the TFA group. No clinically relevant differences in antithrombotic therapy and combinations were present at the time of PCI. However, upon discharge, transradial PCI patients had a higher rate of triple therapy, while dual therapy was preferred after transfemoral procedures. Radial access was more frequently chosen for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina pectoris (UAP) cases (NSTEMI 26.6% vs. 17.0%, p < 0.0001; UAP 21.5% vs. 14.5%, p < 0.001), while femoral access was more common for elective PCI (60.3% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.0001). No differences were observed for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Both groups had similar rates of cerebral events (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p = 0.93), but the TFA group had a higher incidence of bleeding (BARC 2-5) (4.2% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.01), mainly driven by BARC 3 bleeding (1.5% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were found for stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p = 0.93; TFA 0.4% vs. TRA 0.1%, p = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

In HBR patients with AF undergoing PCI for acute or chronic coronary syndrome, the use of TRA might be associated with a decrease in in-hospital bleeding, while not increasing the risk of embolic or ischemic events compared to femoral access. Further studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.

Strategies to Minimize Access Site-related Complications in Patients Undergoing Transfemoral Artery Procedures with Large-bore Devices

Large bore accesses refer to accesses with a diameter of 10 French or greater and are necessary for various medical devices, including those used in transcatheter aortic valve replacement, endovascular aneurysm repair stent-grafts, and percutaneous mechanical support devices. Notably, the utilization of these devices via femoral access is steadily increasing due to advancements in technology and implantation techniques, which are expanding the pool of patients suitable for percutaneous procedures. However, procedures involving large bore devices carry a high risk of bleeding and vascular complications (VCs), impacting both morbidity and long-term mortality. In this review article, we will first discuss the incidence, determinants, and prognostic impact of VCs in patients undergoing large bore access procedures. Subsequently, we will explore the strategies developed in recent years to minimize VCs, including techniques for optimizing vascular puncture through femoral cannulation, such as the use of echo-guided access cannulation and fluoroscopic guidance. Additionally, we will evaluate existing vascular closure devices designed for large bore devices. Finally, we will consider new pharmacological strategies aimed at reducing the risk of periprocedural access-related bleeding.

Ultrasound guidance for transfemoral access in coronary procedures: an individual participant-level data metaanalysis from the femoral ultrasound trialist collaboration

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials of ultrasound (US)-guided transfemoral access (TFA) for coronary procedures have shown mixed results.

AIMS

We aimed to compare US-guided versus non-US-guided TFA from randomised data in an individual participant-level data (IPD) meta-analysis.

METHODS

We completed a systematic review and an IPD meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials comparing US-guided versus non-US-guided TFA for coronary procedures. We performed a one-stage mixed-model meta-analysis using the intention-to-treat population from included trials. The primary outcome was a composite of major vascular complications or major bleeding within 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 2,441 participants (1,208 US-guided, 1,233 non-US-guided) from 4 randomised clinical trials were included. The mean age was 65.5 years, 27.0% were female, and 34.5% underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention. The incidence of major vascular complications or major bleeding (34/1,208 [2.8%] vs 55/1,233 [4.5%]; odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-0.94; p=0.026) was lower in the US-guided TFA group. In the prespecified subgroup of participants who received a vascular closure device, those randomised to US-guided TFA experienced a reduction in the primary outcome (2.1% vs 5.6%; OR 0.36, 95% CI: 0.19-0.69), while no benefit for US guidance was observed in the subgroup without vascular closure devices (4.1% vs 3.3%; OR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.65-2.26; interaction p=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

In participants undergoing coronary procedures by TFA, US guidance decreased the composite outcome of major vascular complications or bleeding and may be especially helpful when using vascular closure devices.

Chinese expert consensus on transradial access in percutaneous peripheral interventions

Transradial access (TRA) is a safe and comfortable approach and the preferred access for percutaneous coronary intervention. However, TRA is not widely used for peripheral interventions. Currently, there is a lack of data on patient selection, appropriate medical devices, complication prevention, and TRA adoption. Therefore, the Chinese Society of Interventional Oncology of the China Anti-Cancer Association organized nationwide experts to establish a Working Group of China Expert Consensus on TRA in percutaneous peripheral interventions in 2022, and jointly formulated this consensus to better promote the application of TRA in peripheral interventions to guide clinicians on patient selection, technical recommendations, and physician training. This consensus mainly focuses on the current situation, advantages and limitations of TRA in peripheral interventions, anatomical characteristics of the radial artery, patient selection, technical aspects, prevention and management of complications, radiation dose, and learning curve. A consensus was reached through a literature evaluation and by referring to the opinions of the expert group.

Stroke risk in radial versus femoral approach in coronary intervention: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Peri-cardiac catheterization (CC) stroke is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Little is known about any potential difference in stroke risk between transradial (TR) and transfemoral (TF) approaches. We explored this question through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from 1980 to June 2022. Randomized trials and observational studies comparing radial versus femoral access CC or intervention that reported stroke events were included. A random-effects model was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The total population in our 41 pooled studies comprised 1 112 136 patients - average age 65 years, women averaging 27% in TR and 31% in TF approaches. Primary analysis of 18 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that included a total of 45 844 patients showed that there was no statistical significance in stroke outcomes between the TR approach and the TF approach [odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-1.06, P -value = 0.013, I2 = 47.7%]. Furthermore, meta-regression analysis of RCTs including procedural duration between those two access sites showed no significance in stroke outcomes (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86-1.34, P -value = 0.921, I2 = 0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in stroke outcomes between the TR approach and the TF approach.

Preventing and Managing Radial Artery Occlusion following Transradial Procedures: Strategies and Considerations

Τransradial artery access has recently gained widespread acceptance as the preferred approach for coronary angiography and interventions, due to its lower incidence of bleeding and vascular complications compared to transfemoral access. However, thrombotic occlusion of the radial artery has emerged as the most common complication of this method, impeding its use in future interventions, and in the creation of arteriovenous fistulae for hemodialysis patients, or as a graft for coronary artery bypasses grafting. In this comprehensive review, we delve into the anatomy of the radial artery, the pathophysiology and diagnosis of radial artery occlusion, the identification of potential risk factors and, finally, prevention and treatment strategies. We acknowledge that distal transradial access provides an effective alternative for coronary angiography and catheterizations, with a reduced incidence of radial artery occlusion.

Ultrasound-Guided Femoral Vascular Access for Percutaneous Coronary and Structural Interventions

Radial access has largely substituted femoral access for coronary interventions. Nevertheless, the femoral artery remains indispensable for gaining access to structural and complex percutaneous coronary interventions such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation and chronic total occlusion interventions, respectively. Ultrasound-guided femoral puncture is a broadly available, inexpensive, and relatively easy-to-learn technique. According to the existing evidence, ultrasound guidance for gaining femoral access has improved the effectiveness and safety of the technique. In the present paper, we sought to review the current literature in order to provide the reader with up-to-date data regarding the benefits of ultrasound-guided femoral access compared with the conventional technique as well as describing the state-of-the-art technique for gaining femoral access under ultrasound guidance.

Ultrasound-guided femoral access in patients with vascular closure devices: a prespecified analysis of the randomised UNIVERSAL trial

BACKGROUND

Whether ultrasound (US)-guided femoral access compared to femoral access without US guidance decreases access site complications in patients receiving a vascular closure device (VCD) is unclear.

AIMS

We aimed to compare the safety of VCD in patients undergoing US-guided versus non-US-guided femoral arterial access for coronary procedures.

METHODS

We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the UNIVERSAL trial, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of 1:1 US-guided femoral access versus non-US-guided femoral access, stratified for planned VCD use, for coronary procedures on a background of fluoroscopic landmarking. The primary endpoint was a composite of major Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 bleeding and vascular complications at 30 days.

RESULTS

Of 621 patients, 328 (52.8%) received a VCD (86% ANGIO-SEAL, 14% ProGlide). In patients who received a VCD, those randomised to US-guided femoral access compared to non-US-guided femoral access experienced a reduction in major bleeding or vascular complications (20/170 [11.8%] vs 37/158 [23.4%], odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.82). In patients who did not receive a VCD, there was no difference between the US- and non-US-guided femoral access groups, respectively (20/141 [14.2%] vs 13/152 [8.6%], OR 1.76, 95% CI: 0.80-4.03; interaction p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients receiving a VCD after coronary procedures, US-guided femoral access was associated with fewer bleeding and vascular complications compared to femoral access without US guidance. US guidance for femoral access may be particularly beneficial when VCD are used.

Routine Ultrasonography Guidance for Femoral Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures: The UNIVERSAL Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

A significant limitation of femoral artery access for cardiac interventions is the increased risk of vascular complications and bleeding compared with radial access. Strategies to make femoral access safer are needed.

Objective

To determine whether routinely using ultrasonography guidance for femoral arterial access for coronary angiography/intervention reduces bleeding or vascular complications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Routine Ultrasound Guidance for Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures (UNIVERSAL) randomized clinical trial is a multicenter, prospective, open-label trial of ultrasonography-guided femoral access vs no ultrasonography for coronary angiography or intervention with planned femoral access. Patients were randomized from June 26, 2018, to April 26, 2022. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were not eligible.

Interventions

Ultrasonography guidance vs no ultrasonography guidance for femoral arterial access on a background of fluoroscopic landmarking.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary composite outcome is the composite of major bleeding based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 criteria or major vascular complications within 30 days.

Results

A total of 621 patients were randomized at 2 centers in Canada (mean [SD] age, 71 [10.24] years; 158 [25.4%] female). The primary outcome occurred in 40 of 311 patients (12.9%) in the ultrasonography group vs 50 of 310 patients (16.1%) without ultrasonography (odds ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.49-1.20]; P = .25). The rates of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding were 10.0% (31 of 311) vs 10.7% (33 of 310) (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.55-1.56]; P = .78). The rates of major vascular complications were 6.4% (20 of 311) vs 9.4% (29 of 310) (odds ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.37-1.20]; P = .18). Ultrasonography improved first-pass success (277 of 311 [86.6%] vs 222 of 310 [70.0%]; odds ratio, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.85-4.12]; P < .001) and reduced the number of arterial puncture attempts (mean [SD], 1.2 [0.5] vs 1.4 [0.8]; mean difference, -0.26 [95% CI, -0.37 to -0.16]; P < .001) and venipuncture (10 of 311 [3.1%] vs 37 of 310 [11.7%]; odds ratio, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.12-0.50]; P < .001) with similar times to access (mean [SD], 114 [185] vs 129 [206] seconds; mean difference, -15.1 [95% CI, -45.9 to 15.8]; P = .34). All prerandomization prespecified subgroups were consistent with the overall finding.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, use of ultrasonography for femoral access did not reduce bleeding or vascular complications. However, ultrasonography did reduce the risk of venipuncture and number of attempts. Larger trials may be required to demonstrate additional potential benefits of ultrasonography-guided access.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03537118.

Comparison of Six Different Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance Modalities

Background: New randomized trials and modalities in guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have become available. Objective: We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of coronary angiography (CAG), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), optical coherence tomography (OCT), fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI)-guided PCI. Methods: A network meta-analysis was performed to compare different PCI guidance modalities. The clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR). Odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated. Results: Thirty-six randomized trials, including 19,042 patients, were included. In comparison with CAG, IVUS significantly reduced MACE (OR: 0.71; 95% CrI: 0.57 to 0.86) and TVR/TLR (OR: 0.53; 95% CrI: 0.43 to 0.66). MACE (OR: 1.44; 95% CrI: 1.02 to 2.08) and TVR/TLR (OR: 1.87; 95% CrI: 1.04 to 3.71) were significantly increased in the FFR group, compared with IVUS group. There were no significant differences in MACE or TVR/TLR among the left guidance modality comparisons. Differences in all-cause death or MI were not observed in any comparisons. Conclusions: IVUS could reduce MACE and TVR/TLR, compared with CAG or FFR. Therefore, IVUS may be the optimal modality in guiding PCI.

Design and Rationale of Routine ltrasoud Gudance for ascular Accss fo Cardiac Procedure: Randomized Tria (UNIVERSAL)

Background

A significant limitation of femoral artery access for cardiac interventions is the increased risk of vascular complications and bleeding compared to radial access. Ultrasound (US)-guided femoral access may reduce major vascular complications and bleeding. We aim to determine whether routinely using US guidance for femoral arterial access for coronary angiography or intervention will reduce Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding or major vascular complications.

Methods

The Ultrasound Guidance for Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures: A Randomized Trial (UNIVERSAL) is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized trial with blinded outcomes assessment. Patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without intervention via a femoral approach with fluoroscopic guidance will be randomized 1:1 to US-guided femoral access, compared to no US. The primary outcome is the composite of major bleeding based on the BARC 2, 3, or 5 criteria or major vascular complications within 30 days. The trial is designed to have 80% power and a 2-sided alpha level of 5% to detect a 50% relative risk reduction for the primary outcome based on a control event rate of 14%.

Results

We completed enrollment on April 29, 2022, with 621 randomized patients. The patients had a mean age of 71 years (25.4% female), with a high rate of comorbidities, as follows: 45% had a prior percutaneous coronary intervention; 57% had previous coronary artery bypass surgery; and 18% had peripheral vascular disease.

Conclusions

The UNIVERSAL trial will be one of the largest randomized trials of US-guided femoral access and has the potential to change guidelines and increase US uptake for coronary procedures worldwide.

Clinical Outcomes Following Hemodynamic Parameter or Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents: An Updated Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 28 Randomized Trials and 11,860 Patients

Background

Coronary angiography (CAG) is the standard imaging modality for guiding percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Intracoronary imaging techniques such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT), and hemodynamic parameter like fractional flow reserve (FFR) can overcome some limitations of CAG.

Objective

We sought to explore the clinical outcomes of different PCI guidance modalities in the era of drug-eluting stent (DES).

Methods

A network meta-analysis of 28 randomized trials and 11,860 patients undergoing different modalities-guided PCI in the era of DES was performed. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated.

Results

In comparison with CAG, IVUS was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, OR: 0.60; 95% CrI: 0.46–0.79), cardiovascular death (OR: 0.46; 95% CrI: 0.20–0.94), target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR, OR: 0.55; 95% CrI: 0.41–0.74), and a trend toward decreased risk of stent thrombosis (OR: 0.44; 95% CrI: 0.17 to 1.00). FFR/quantitative flow ratio (QFR) could significantly reduce stroke compared with CAG, IVUS, and OCT/optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI). However, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death, stent thrombosis, and any revascularization presented similar risks for different PCI guidance modalities.

Conclusion

In the era of DES, IVUS led to lower risks of MACE than CAG, which was mainly due to lower risks of cardiovascular death and TVR/TLR. A trend toward decreased risk of stent thrombosis was also observed with IVUS. Hemodynamic parameter (FFR/QFR)-guided PCI could significantly reduce the stroke risk compared with CAG, IVUS, and OCT/OFDI.

Systematic Review Registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42021291442].

Radial Artery Access for Acute Coronary Syndromes: a Review of Current Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the evidence supporting the use of transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been five major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two recent meta-analyses comparing outcomes of TRA and femoral access (FA) in ACS. Additional studies have explored the impact of TRA on STEMI door-to-balloon (D2B) times, TRA in high-risk ACS patients, the potential conflict between TRA and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery employing the radial artery, and distal radial artery (DRA) access. TRA is associated with a reduction in net adverse clinical events, major bleeding, acute renal injury, and access site complications compared to FA in ACS patients undergoing PCI. TRA is not associated with significant delays in STEMI D2B times that impact patient outcomes. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of TRA in high-risk ACS patients, the interplay between TRA and radial artery CABG, and use of DRA in ACS.

Ultrasound guidance for arterial (other than femoral) catheterisation in adults

BACKGROUND

Arterial vascular access is a frequently performed procedure, with a high possibility for adverse events (e.g. pneumothorax, haemothorax, haematoma, amputation, death), and additional techniques such as ultrasound may be useful for improving outcomes. However, ultrasound guidance for arterial access in adults is still under debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ultrasound guidance for arterial (other than femoral) catheterisation in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL on 21 May 2021. We also searched IBECS, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 June 2021, and we checked the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over trials and cluster-RCTs, comparing ultrasound guidance, alone or associated with other forms of guidance, versus other interventions or palpation and landmarks for arterial (other than femoral) guidance in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 48 studies (7997 participants) that tested palpation and landmarks, Doppler auditory ultrasound assistance (DUA), direct ultrasound guidance with B-mode, or any other modified ultrasound technique for arterial (axillary, dorsalis pedis, and radial) catheterisation in adults. Radial artery Real-time B-mode ultrasound versus palpation and landmarks Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve first attempt success rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 1.61; 4708 participants, 27 studies; low-certainty evidence) and overall success rate (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16; 4955 participants, 28 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may decrease time needed for a successful procedure (mean difference (MD) -0.33 minutes, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.13; 4902 participants, 26 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to one hour compared to palpation and landmarks. Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably decreases major haematomas (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56; 2504 participants, 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on pseudoaneurysm, pain, and quality of life (QoL) compared to palpation and landmarks (very low-certainty evidence). Real-time B-mode ultrasound versus DUA One study (493 participants) showed that real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably improves first attempt success rate (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.64; moderate-certainty evidence) and time needed for a successful procedure (MD -1.57 minutes, 95% CI -1.78 to -1.36; moderate-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to DUA. Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve overall success rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.29; low-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to DUA. Pseudoaneurysm, major haematomas, pain, and QoL were not reported. Real-time B-mode ultrasound versus modified real-time B-mode ultrasound Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may decrease first attempt success rate (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.84; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), may decrease overall success rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may lead to no difference in time needed for a successful procedure (MD 0.04 minutes, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to one hour compared to modified real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance. It is uncertain whether real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on major haematomas compared to modified real-time B-mode ultrasound (very low-certainty evidence). Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported. In-plane versus out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound In-plane real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may lead to no difference in overall success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; 1051 participants, 8 studies; low-certainty evidence) and in time needed for a successful procedure (MD -0.06 minutes, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; 1134 participants, 9 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound up to one hour. It is uncertain whether in-plane real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on first attempt success rate or major haematomas compared to out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound (very low-certainty evidence). Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported. DUA versus palpation and landmarks DUA may lead to no difference in first attempt success rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 666 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or overall success rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 666 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time needed for a successful procedure (MD 0.45 minutes, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.70; 500 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to palpation and landmarks. Pseudoaneurysm, major haematomas, pain, and QoL were not reported. Oblique-axis versus long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound Oblique-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound guidance may increase overall success rate (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.53; 215 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound. It is uncertain whether oblique-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on first attempt success rate, time needed for a successful procedure, and major haematomas compared to long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound. Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported. We are uncertain about effects in the following comparisons due to very low-certainty evidence and unreported outcomes: real-time B-mode ultrasound versus palpation and landmarks (axillary and dorsalis pedis arteries), real-time B-mode ultrasound versus near-infrared laser (radial artery), and dynamic versus static out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound (radial artery).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve first attempt success rate, overall success rate, and time needed for a successful procedure for radial artery catheterisation compared to palpation, or DUA. In addition, real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably decreases major haematomas compared to palpation. However, we are uncertain about the evidence on major haematomas and pain for other comparisons due to very low-certainty evidence and unreported outcomes. We are also uncertain about the effects on pseudoaneurysm and QoL for axillary and dorsalis pedis arteries catheterisation. Given that first attempt success rate and pseudoaneurysm are the most relevant outcomes for people who underwent arterial catheterisation, future studies must measure both. Future trials must be large enough to detect effects, use validated scales, and report longer-term follow-up.

Femoral vascular access for endovascular resuscitation

ABSTRACT

Endovascular resuscitation is an emerging area in the resuscitation of both severe traumatic hemorrhage and nontraumatic cardiac arrest. Vascular access is the critical first procedural step that must be accomplished to initiate endovascular resuscitation. The endovascular interventions presently available and emerging are routinely or potentially performed via the femoral vessels. This may require either femoral arterial access alone or access to both the femoral artery and vein. The time-critical nature of resuscitation necessitates that medical specialists performing endovascular resuscitation be well-trained in vascular access techniques. Keen knowledge of femoral vascular anatomy and skill with vascular access techniques are required to meet the needs of critically ill patients for whom endovascular resuscitation can prove lifesaving. This review article addresses the critical importance of femoral vascular access in endovascular resuscitation, focusing on the pertinent femoral vascular anatomy and technical aspects of ultrasound-guided percutaneous vascular access and femoral vessel cutdown that may prove helpful for successful endovascular resuscitation.

Ultrasound versus fluoroscopy-guided femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusions: Insights from FOUND BLOOD CTO Registry

OBJECTIVE

To compare vascular complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of chronic total occlusions (CTO) using ultrasound guidance (USG) versus fluoroscopy guidance (FSG) for femoral access.

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing PCI, using the arterial femoral access increases the risk of vascular complications compared using the radial access. USG reduces time to access, number of attempts, and vascular complications compared with FSG, but the efficacy of USG has never been tested in the setting of CTO-PCI.

METHODS

A total of 197 patients undergoing CTO-PCI using at least a femoral vascular access from November 2015 to September 2020 were screened. The primary outcome was a composite of local hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, retroperitoneal hemorrhage, arteriovenous fistula or hemoglobin drop ≥3 g/dL during hospitalization. The independent association between USG and the primary outcome of interest was explored.

RESULTS

The primary outcome occurred in 17.3% of patients. Patients in the USG group had a significantly lower incidence of vascular complications compared with patients in the FSG group (8.5% vs. 21.0%, p = 0.039), driven by a reduction of localized hematomas (3.4% vs 13.0%, p = 0.042). After adjustment for type of CTO approach and heparin dose, USG was significantly associated with a reduced relative risk of the composite primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.51; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

USG in CTO-PCI is associated with a decreased risk of vascular complications, primarily driven by a reduction in local hematomas, especially in complex CTO-PCI where the larger use of heparin increases the risk of vascular complications.

Learning curves for transradial access versus transfemoral access in diagnostic cerebral angiography: a case series

BACKGROUND

The perception of a steep learning curve associated with transradial access has resulted in its limited adoption in neurointervention despite the demonstrated benefits, including decreased access-site complications.

OBJECTIVE

To compare learning curves of transradial versus transfemoral diagnostic cerebral angiograms obtained by five neurovascular fellows as primary operator.

METHODS

The first 100-150 consecutive transradial and transfemoral angiographic scans performed by each fellow between July 2017 and March 2020 were identified. Mean fluoroscopy time per artery injected (angiographic efficiency) was calculated as a marker of technical proficiency and compared for every 25 consecutive procedures performed (eg, 1-25, 26-50, 51-75).

RESULTS

We identified 1242 diagnostic angiograms, 607 transradial and 635 transfemoral. The radial cohort was older (64.3 years vs 62.3 years, p=0.01) and demonstrated better angiographic efficiency (3.4 min/vessel vs 3.7 min/vessel, p=0.03). For three fellows without previous endovascular experience, proficiency was obtained between 25 and 50 transfemoral angiograms. One fellow achieved proficiency after performing 25-50 transradial angiograms; and the two other fellows, in <25 transradial angiograms. The two fellows with previous experience had flattened learning curves for both access types. Two patients experienced transient neurologic symptoms postprocedure. Transradial angiograms were associated with significantly fewer access-site complications (3/607, 0.5% vs 22/635, 3.5%, p<0.01). Radial-to-femoral conversion occurred in 1.2% (7/607); femoral-to-radial conversion occurred in 0.3% (2/635). Over time, the proportion of transradial angiographic procedures increased.

CONCLUSION

Technical proficiency improved significantly over time for both access types, typically requiring between 25 and 50 diagnostic angiograms to achieve asymptomatic improvement in efficiency. Reduced access-site complications and decreased fluoroscopy time were benefits associated with transradial angiography.

Radial Access for Coronary Angiography Carries Fewer Complications Compared with Femoral Access: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), the benefits associated with radial access compared with the femoral access approach remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term evidence-based clinical outcome of the two approaches.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radial versus femoral access for CA and PCI. We identified 34 RCTs with 29,352 patients who underwent CA and/or PCI and compared 14,819 patients randomized for radial access with 14,533 who underwent procedures using femoral access. The follow-up period for clinical outcome was 30 days in all studies. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effect or a random-effect model, as appropriate. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for efficacy and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Compared with femoral access, the radial access was associated with significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (RR: 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61 to 0.88; p = 0.001), major bleeding (RR: 0.53; 95% CI:0.43 to 0.65; p ˂ 0.00001), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)(RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.91; p = 0.0002), and major vascular complications (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.48; p ˂ 0.00001). These results were consistent irrespective of the clinical presentation of ACS or STEMI.

CONCLUSIONS

Radial access in patients undergoing CA with or without PCI is associated with lower mortality, MACE, major bleeding and vascular complications, irrespective of clinical presentation, ACS or STEMI, compared with femoral access.

Long-term clinical outcomes in transradial versus transfemoral access for left main percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVE

The present study compared 10-year clinical outcomes between transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) for left main (LM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding the long-term safety and efficacy of TRA for LM PCI.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients who underwent unprotected LM PCI between January 2004 and December 2008 at Fu Wai Hospital. The exclusion criteria were age of less than 18 years and presentation with acute myocardial infarction. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), which was defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and any revascularization at the 10-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 913 eligible patients, TRA was used for 417 patients (45.7%) and TFA was used for 496 patients (54.3%). The 30-day clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. Results from the 10-year follow-up revealed that MACCE occurred in 180 patients (46.7%) from the TRA group and in 239 patients (51.2%) from the TFA group (log-rank p = .3). The TRA and TFA groups also had low and comparable cumulative rates of all-cause death (14.6% vs. 17.3%, log-rank p = .56) and cardiac death (7.9% vs. 9.1%, log-rank p = .7).

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed no significant differences in long-term clinical outcomes when TRA or TFA were used for LM PCI.

The Learning Curves for Transradial and Ultrasound-Guided Arterial Access: An Analysis of the SURF Trial

INTRODUCTION

Historically, coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention involved accessing the femoral artery via palpation. However, recently there has been a trend towards using a transradial approach and ultrasound guidance for arterial access. Studies have shown that these techniques respectively improve major bleeding rates and access outcomes. There have been no studies conducted that assess the time it takes to train operators to attain proficiency. This sub-analysis of the Standard versus Ultrasound-guided Radial and Femoral access in coronary angiography and intervention (SURF) trial aims to assess the number of procedures required to attain proficiency in ultrasound-guided transradial and transfemoral access.

METHODS

The SURF trial randomised 1,388 patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention into standard or ultrasound-guidance and radial or femoral access in a 2×2 factorial design. Operators who participated in this trial were required to have performed at least 50 standard and 10 ultrasound-guided punctures for each of transradial and transfemoral access. Cases were then chronologically ordered and stratified into groups of five, from which the primary endpoint measured was a progression in mean access time and first-pass success rates.

RESULTS

Across all operators, there was a reduction in mean access time between procedures one to five and six to 10 with ultrasound-guided femoral punctures (60.5 secs-51.5 secs, p=0.029) and between procedures 11 to 15 and 16 to 20 ultrasound-guided radial punctures (74s to 62.5 secs, p=0.082). This trend was more obvious in trainees, with significant reductions in mean access time between procedures one to five and six to 10 from 73.5 to 53.5 seconds (p<0.001) for ultrasound-guided femoral access and from 99.5 seconds to 60 seconds (p=0.024) for ultrasound-guided radial access. There were no trends with standard transradial access.

CONCLUSION

The numbers required to attain competency in ultrasound-guided femoral and radial access are 15 and 25 punctures, respectively. Fifty (50) punctures appear adequate for proficiency in a standard transradial approach. These numbers are useful in incorporating into training program for advanced trainees and interventionalists.

Patient selection, procedural planning and interventional guidance for transcatheter aortic valve intervention

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established treatment for severe aortic stenosis across a broad spectrum of patient risk profiles. Pre-procedural planning using multislice computed tomography (MSCT) is a fundamental component to ensure acute and long-term procedural success. MSCT can establish the procedural feasibility, the type vascular of approach as well as the device which is more likely to give a good result. Moreover, MSCT is a key tool to estimate the risk of potentially life-threatening complications. In this review, the role of MSCT for pre-procedural TAVR planning will be discussed providing a panoramic overview of the key elements that should be considered when performing TAVR. Additionally, the adjunctive role of fluoroscopy and echocardiography to plan and guide a TAVR procedure will also be discussed.

Access-Site Complications in Transfemoral Neuroendovascular Procedures: A Systematic Review of Incidence Rates and Management Strategies

BACKGROUND

The femoral artery is the most common access route for cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures. Complications of the transfemoral approach include groin hemorrhages and hematomas, retroperitoneal hematomas, pseudoaneurysms, arteriovenous fistulas, peripheral artery occlusions, femoral nerve injuries, and access-site infections. Incidence rates vary among different randomized and nonrandomized trials, and the literature lacks a comprehensive review of this subject.

OBJECTIVE

To gather data from 16 randomized clinical trials (RCT) and 17 nonrandomized cohort studies regarding femoral access-site complications for a review paper. We also briefly discuss management strategies for these complications based on the most recent literature.

METHODS

A PubMed indexed search for all neuroendovascular clinical trials, retrospective studies, and prospective studies that reported femoral artery access-site complications in neurointerventional procedures.

RESULTS

The overall access-site complication rate in RCTs is 5.13%, while in in non-RCTs, the rate is 2.78%. The most common complication in both groups is groin hematoma followed by access-site hemorrhage and femoral pseudoaneurysm. On the other hand, wound infection was the least common complication.

CONCLUSION

The transfemoral approach in neuroendovascular procedures holds risk for several complications. This review will allow further studies to compare access-site complications between the transfemoral approach and other alternative access sites, mainly the transradial approach, which is gaining a lot of interest nowadays.

Transradial vs. Transfemoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With or Without High Bleeding Risk Criteria

BACKGROUND

The transradial approach is reportedly associated with reduced bleeding complications and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It is unknown whether the clinical benefits of transradial vs. transfemoral PCI differ between high bleeding risk (HBR) and non-HBR patients.Methods and Results:After excluding patients with acute myocardial infarction, dialysis, and a transbrachial approach from the 13,087 patients undergoing first PCI in the CREDO-Kyoto Registry Cohort-2, 6,828 patients were eligible for this study. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to bleeding risk based on Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria, and then divided into a further 2 groups according to access site, radial or femoral: HBR-radial, n=1,054 (38.3%); HBR-femoral, n=1,699 (61.7%); non-HBR-radial, n=1,682 (41.3%); and non-HBR-femoral, n=2,393 (58.7%). In the HBR group, the 30-day incidence and adjusted risk for major bleeding (1.9% vs. 4.7% [P<0.001]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-0.71 [P<0.001]) and all-cause death (0.3% vs. 0.9% [P=0.04]; aHR 0.30, 95% CI 0.07-0.93 [P=0.04]) were significantly lower in the radial than femoral group. There were no significant differences in the 30-day incidence and adjusted risk for major bleeding (0.5% vs. 1.0% [P=0.09]; aHR 0.68, 95% CI 0.30-1.45 [P=0.33]) or all-cause death (0.1% vs. 0.1% [P=0.96]; aHR 1.51, 95% CI 0.19-9.54 [P=0.67]) between the radial and femoral approaches in the non-HBR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with transfemoral PCI, transradial PCI was associated with lower risk for 30-day major bleeding and mortality in HBR but not non-HBR patients.

Standard Versus Ultrasound-Guided Cannulation of the Femoral Artery in Patients Undergoing Invasive Procedures: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether or not ultrasound-guided cannulation (UGC) of the femoral artery is superior to the standard approach (SA) in reducing vascular complications and improving access success.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare procedural and clinical outcomes of femoral UGC versus SA in patients undergoing percutaneous cardiovascular intervention (PCvI).

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and web sources for randomized trials comparing UGC versus SA. We estimated risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Primary efficacy endpoint was the success rate at the first attempt, while secondary efficacy endpoints were access time and number of attempts. Primary safety endpoints were the rates of vascular complications, while secondary endpoints were major bleeding, as well as access site hematoma, venepuncture, pseudoaneurysms and retroperitoneal hematoma. This meta-analysis has been registered on Centre for Open Science (OSF) (osf.io/fy82e).

RESULTS

Seven trials were included, randomizing 3180 patients to UGC (n = 1564) or SA (n = 1616). Efficacy between UGC and SA was the main metric assessed in most of the trials, in which one third of the enrolled patients underwent interventional procedures. The success rate of the first attempt was significantly higher with UGC compared to SA, (82.0% vs. 58.7%; RR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.57; p < 0.0001; I² = 88%). Time to access and number of attempts were significantly reduced with UGC compared to SA (SMD: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.28 to -0.10; p < 0.0001; I² = 22%) and (SMD: -0.40; 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.21; p < 0.0001; I² = 82%), respectively. Compared with SA, use of UGC was associated with a significant reduction in vascular complications (1.3% vs. 3.0%; RR: 0.48; CI 95%: 0.25 to 0.91; p = 0.02; I² = 0%) and access-site hematoma (1.2% vs. 3.3%; RR: 0.41; CI 95%: 0.20 to 0.83; p = 0.01; I² = 27%), but there were non-significant differences in major bleeding (0.7% vs. 1.4%; RR: 0.57; CI 95%: 0.24 to 1.32; p = 0.19; I² = 0%). Rates of venepuncture were lower with UGC (3.6% vs. 12.1%; RR: 0.32; CI 95%: 0.20 to 0.52; p < 0.00001; I² = 55%).

CONCLUSION

This study, which included all available data to date, demonstrated that, compared to a standard approach, ultrasound-guided cannulation of the femoral artery is associated with lower access-related complications and higher efficacy rates. These results could be of great clinical relevance especially in the femoral cannulation of high risk patients.