The eft Dstal ransradial ccess site cold give a safe alterate sit for trasradial coronary inervention (The Study)

Transradial Access (TRA) is the suggested method when performing coronary procedures. TRA has several advantages over the transfemoral approach, but also some restrictions. The present study compared the efficacy and safety of the traditional proximal transradial approach (pTRA) with a newer technique known as the distal transradial approach (dTRA) for performing a coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients (n = 700) were placed into one of two categories (dTRA or pTRA) based on a random technique. The primary endpoint was RAO at follow-up. The secondary endpoints included the time required for sheath insertion, the rate of successful sheath insertion, rate of successful completion of CAG and PCI, total procedure time, total fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, total contrast volume used, pain perception (visual analog scale 0-10), and hemostasis duration. dTRA patients had more skin punctures, failed punctures, failed wiring, overlap of access sites, sheath insertion time, and pain evaluation scale, while the pTRA group had more hemostasis time and first-time cannulation. RAO and pseudoaneurysm (PseA) were lower in the dTRA group. In this randomized study, dTRA had lower RAO and PseA than pTRA. However, multicenter, larger-patient trials are needed to provide definitive evidence.

Transradial intervention in dialysis patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a Japanese nationwide registry study

Aims

Transradial intervention (TRI) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used to reduce periprocedural complications. However, its effectiveness and safety for patients on dialysis are not well established. We aimed to investigate the association of TRI with in-hospital complications in dialysis patients undergoing PCI.

Methods and results

We included 44 462 patients on dialysis who underwent PCI using Japanese nationwide PCI registry data (2019-21) regardless of acute or chronic coronary syndrome. Patients were categorized based on access site: TRI, transfemoral intervention (TFI). Periprocedural access site bleeding complication requiring transfusion was the primary outcome and in-hospital death, and other periprocedural complications were the secondary outcomes. Matched weighted analysis was performed for TRI and TFI. Here, 8267 (18.6%) underwent TRI, and 36 195 (81.4%) underwent TFI. Patients who received TRI were older and had lower rates of comorbidities than those who received TFI. Access site bleeding rate and in-hospital death were significantly lower in the TRI group (0.1% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.001; 1.8% vs. 3.2%, P < 0.001, respectively). After adjustment, TRI was associated with a lower risk of access site bleeding (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.19 [0.099-0.38]; P < 0.001) and in-hospital death (OR [95% CI]: 0.79 [0.65-0.96]; P = 0.02). Other periprocedural complications between TRI and TFI were not significantly different.

Conclusion

In patients undergoing dialysis and PCI, TRI had a lower risk of access site bleeding and in-hospital death than TFI. This suggests that TRI may be safer for this patient population.

STICH3C: Rationale and Study Protocol

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the recommended mode of revascularization in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction (iLVSD) and multivessel disease. However, contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes have improved with the integration of novel technologies and refinement of revascularization strategies, and PCI is often used in clinical practice in this population. There is a lack of evidence from randomized trials comparing contemporary state-of-the-art PCI versus CABG for the treatment of iLVSD and multivessel disease. This was the impetus for the STICH3C trial (Canadian CABG or PCI in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy), described here.

METHODS

The STICH3C trial is a prospective, unblinded, international, multicenter trial with an expected sample size of 754 participants from ≈45 centers. Patients with multivessel/left main coronary artery disease and iLVSD with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% considered by the local Heart Team appropriate for and amenable to revascularization by both modes of revascularization will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to state-of-the-art PCI or CABG.

RESULTS

The primary end point is the composite of death from any cause, stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction, urgent repeat revascularization, or heart failure readmission, summarized as a time-to-event outcome. The key hierarchical end point is time to death and frequency of hospitalizations for heart failure. The key safety outcome is a composite of major adverse events. Disease-specific quality-of-life and health economics measures will be compared between groups. Participants will be followed for a median of 5 years, with a minimum follow-up of 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

STICH3C will directly inform patients, clinicians, and international practice guidelines about the efficacy and safety of CABG versus PCI in patients with iLVSD. The results will provide novel and broad evidence, including clinical events, health status, and economic assessments, to guide care for patients with iLVSD and severe coronary artery disease.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Unique identifier: NCT05427370.

Cardiovascular Outcomes of Transulnar Versus Transradial Percutaneous Coronary Angiography and Intervention: A Regression Matched Meta-Analysis

Transradial access (TRA) and transulnar access (TUA) are in close vicinity, but TRA is the preferred intervention route. The cardiovascular outcomes and access site complications of TUA and TRA are understudied. Databases, including MEDLINE and Cochrane Central registry, were queried to find studies comparing safety outcomes of both procedures. The outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality and access site bleeding. Secondary outcomes were all-cause major adverse cardiovascular events, crossover rate, artery spasm, access site large hematoma, and access site complications between TUA and TRA. A random-effect model was used with regression to report unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) by limiting confounders and effect modifiers, using software STATA V.17. A total of 4,796 patients in 8 studies were included in our analysis (TUA = 2,420 [50.4%] and TRA = 2,376 [49.6%]). The average age was 61.3 and 60.1 years and the patients predominantly male (69.2% vs 68.4%) for TUA and TRA, respectively. TUA had lower rates of local access site bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.97, I² = 1.89%, p = 0.04) but higher crossover rate (OR 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 3.11, I² = 75.37%, p = 0.04) than did TRA. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality, all-cause major adverse cardiovascular events, arterial spasm, and large hematoma between both cohorts. Furthermore, there was no difference in procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume used between TUA and TRA. TUA is a safer approach, associated with lower access site bleeding but higher crossover rates, than TRA. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the safety and long-term outcomes of both procedures.

Comparison of distal transradial approach versus conventional transradial approach for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: A prospective observational study

Background

Compared with the conventional transradial approach (TRA), there are limited data on the efficacy and safety of the novel distal transradial approach (DTRA). This study aimed to verify the effectiveness and safety of the DTRA for percutaneous coronary angiography and intervention. Besides, we also try to highlight the potential of the DTRA in reducing radial artery occlusion (RAO), shorter time to hemostasis, and improved patient comfort.

Methods

This single-center prospective observational study enrolled patients treated with DTRA (n = 527) in the first 9 months and with TRA (n = 586) in the next 8 months from May 2020 to December 2021. The primary endpoint was the proximal RAO rate at 30 days.

Results

Baseline data were similar between the two groups. The proximal radial artery occlusion rate at 30 days [2.3% vs. 7.0%], the success rate of puncture [86.4% vs. 96.7%], the Numeric Rating Scale score [1.97 ± 1.89 vs. 4.61 ± 2.68], and the incidence of postoperative subcutaneous hematoma and finger numbness [3.4% vs. 8.2%, 2.7% vs. 4.4%] were lower. The puncture time [6.93 ± 7.25 min vs. 3.18 ± 3.52 min] was longer, and the time until radial compression device removal was shorter [CAG: 138.61 ± 38.73 min vs. 191.6 ± 61.22 min, PCI:221.46 ± 62.45 min vs. 276.28 ± 76.39 min] in the DTRA group than TRA group (all P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the DTRA (OR 0.231, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.088-0.769, P = 0.001),BMI<18.5 kg/m² (OR 2.627, 95% CI 1.142-4.216, P = 0.004), Diabetes mellitus (OR 2.15, 95%CI1.212-3.475, P = 0.014), RCD removal time (CAG,min) (OR 1.091, 95% CI 1.013-1.441, P = 0.035) and RCD removal time (PCI,min) (OR 1.067, 95% CI 1.024-1.675, P = 0.022) were the independent risk factors of RAO 1 month after intervention procedure.

Conclusion

DTRA was found to a lower incidence of postoperative RAO and bleeding-related complications, shorter time to achieve hemostasis, and greater patient comfort.

Optimal Hemostatic Band Duration After Transradial Angiography or Intervention: Insights From a Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of hemostatic compression post transradial access is controversial. Longer duration increases the risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) while shorter duration increases the risk of access site bleeding or hematoma. As such, a target of 2 hours is typically used. Whether a shorter or longer duration is better is not known.

METHODS

A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials of different duration (<90 minutes, 90 minutes, 2 hours, and 2-4 hours) of hemostasis banding. The efficacy outcome was RAO, primary safety outcome was access site hematoma, and secondary safety outcome was access site rebleeding. Primary analysis compared the effect of various duration in reference to the 2 hours duration using a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 10 randomized clinical trials included with 4911 patients, when compared to the 2-hour reference duration, there was a significantly higher risk of access site hematoma with 90 minutes (odds ratio, 2.39 [95% CI, 1.40-4.06]) and <90 minutes (odds ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 1.79-7.29]) but not with the 2 to 4 hours duration. When compared with the 2-hour reference, there was no significant difference in access site rebleeding or RAO with shorter or longer duration but the point estimates favored longer duration for access site rebleeding and shorter duration for RAO. Duration of <90 minutes and 90 minutes ranked 1 and duration of 2 hours ranked 2 as the most efficacious duration whereas duration of 2 hours ranked 1 and 2 to 4 hours ranked 2 as the safest duration.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing transradial access for coronary angiography or intervention, a hemostasis duration of 2 hours offers the best balance for efficacy (prevention of RAO) and safety (prevention of access site hematoma/rebleeding).

Transradial-Transfistula Access for Cardiac Catheterization in Patients With Abandoned Hemodialysis Fistulas

Guidelines consider radial access a relative contraindication in patients with end-stage renal disease as part of a vessel preservation strategy. Radial access distal to a hemodialysis fistula, what we term transradial-transfistula access, offers a solution to radially access this population without affecting their vessel preservation plan. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.)

Distal Radial Artery Access for Recanalization of Radial Artery Occlusion and Repeat Intervention: A Single Center Experience

Background: Once occluded, the radial artery becomes unsuitable for repeat interventions and obligates the need for alternative vascular access, such as the femoral approach, which is not encouraged by current guidelines. With the dissemination of distal radial access (DRA), which allows the cannulation of the artery in its distal segment and which remains patent even in the case of radial artery occlusion (RAO), the option to perform angioplasty at this level becomes feasible. Methods: Thirty patients with RAO were enrolled in this pilot study. Recanalization was performed through DRA using hydrophilic guidewires. The feasibility endpoint was procedural success, namely the successful RAO recanalization, the efficacy endpoint was patency of the artery at 30 days, and the safety endpoint was the absence of periprocedural vascular major complications or major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Results: The mean age of the patients was 63 ± 11 years, and 15 patients (50%) were men. Most patients had asymptomatic RAO (n = 28, 93.3%), and only two (6.6%) reported numbness in their hands. The most common indication for the procedure was PCI (19, 63.2%). Total procedural time was 41 ± 22 min, while the amount of contrast used was 140 ± 28 mL. Procedural success was 100% (n = 30). Moreover, there were no major vascular complications (0%); only two small hematomas were described (10%) and one had an angiographically visible perforation (3%). One case of periprocedural stroke was reported (3%), with onset immediately after the procedure and recovering 24 h later. Twenty-seven radial arteries (90%) remained patent at the one-month follow-up. Conclusions: RAO recanalization is feasible and safe, and by using dedicated hydrophilic guidewires, the success rate is high without significantly increasing procedural time or the amount of used contrast.

Is the world ready for the STICH 3.0 trial?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is responsible for >50% of heart failures cases. Patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (iLVSD) are known to have poorer outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared to patients with a normal ejection fraction. Nevertheless, <1% of patients in coronary revascularization trials to date had iLVSD. The purpose of this review is to describe coronary revascularization modalities in patients with iLVSD and highlight the need for randomized controlled trial evidence comparing these treatments in this patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Network meta-analytic findings of observational studies suggest that PCI is associated with higher rates of mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization but not stroke compared to CABG in iLVSD. In recent years, outcomes for patients undergoing PCI have improved as a result of advances in technologies and techniques.

SUMMARY

The optimal coronary revascularization modality in patients with iLVSD remains unknown. In observational studies, CABG appears superior to PCI; however, direct randomized evidence is absent and developments in PCI techniques have improved post-PCI outcomes in recent years. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure 3.0 consortium of trials will seek to address the clinical equipoise in coronary revascularization in patients with iLVSD.

Culprit vessel revascularization first with primary use of a dedicated transradial guiding catheter to reduce door to balloon time in primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Background

The effect of a single transradial guiding catheter (STGC) for culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) first on door-to-balloon (D2B) time remains unclear.

Materials and methods

Between February 2017 and July 2019, 560 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were randomized into either the STGC group (n = 280) or the control group (n = 280) according to direct culprit vessel PCI with a STGC. In the STGC group, a dedicated transraidal guiding catheter (6F either MAC3.5 or JL3.5) was used for the treatment of electrocardiogram (ECG)-guided culprit vessel first and later contralateral angiography. In the control group, a universal diagnostic catheter (5F Tiger II) was used for complete coronary angiography, followed by guiding catheter selection for culprit vessel PCI. The primary endpoint was D2B time, and the secondary endpoint included catheterization laboratory door-to-balloon (C2B), procedural, fluoroscopy times, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days.

Results

The median D2B time was significantly shorter in the STGC group compared to the control group (53.9 vs. 58.4 min; p = 0.003). The C2B, procedural, and fluoroscopy times were also shorter in the STGC group (C2B: 17.3 vs. 24.5 min, p &lt; 0.001; procedural: 45.2 vs. 49.0 min, p = 0.012; and fluoroscopy: 9.7 vs. 11.3 min, p = 0.025). More patients achieved the goal of D2B time within 90 min (93.9% vs. 87.1%, p = 0.006) and 60 min (61.4% vs. 51.1%, p = 0.013) in the STGC group. Radial artery perforation (RAP) was significantly reduced in the STGC group compared with the control group (0.7% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.033). MACE at 30 days was similar (2.5% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.172) between the two groups.

Conclusion

ECG-guided immediate intervention on culprit vessel with a STGC can reduce D2B, C2B, procedural, and fluoroscopy times (ECG-guided Immediate Primary PCI for Culprit Vessel to Reduce Door to Device Time; NCT03272451).

Sex differences in time to primary percutaneous coronary intervention and outcomes in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

We assessed sex differences in treatment and outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Historically, delays to timely reperfusion and poorer outcomes have been described in women who suffer STEMI. However, whether these sex discrepancies still exist with contemporary STEMI treatment remains to be evaluated.

METHODS

Consecutive STEMI patients treated with primary PCI patients over a 10-year period (January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2019) from a tertiary referral center were assessed. Comparisons were performed between patient's sex. Primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes were STEMI performance measures.

RESULTS

Most patients (n = 950; 76%) were male. Females were on average older (66.8 vs. 61.4 years males; p < 0.001). Prehospital treatment delays did not differ between sexes (54 min [IQR: 44-65] females vs. 52 min [IQR: 43-62] males; p = 0.061). STEMI performance measures (door-to-balloon, first medical contact-to-balloon [FMCTB]) differed significantly with longer median durations in females and fewer females achieving FMCTB < 90 min (28% females vs. 39% males; p < 0.001). Women also experienced greater rates of initial radial arterial access failure (11.3% vs. 3.1%; p < 0.001). However, there were no significant sex differences in crude or adjusted mortality between sexes at 30-days (3.6% male vs. 5.1% female; p = 0.241, adjusted OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.5-2.2, p = 0.82) or at 1-year (4.8% male vs. 6.8% female; p = 0.190, adjusted OR: 1.0, (95% CI: 0.5-1.8; p = 0.96).

CONCLUSION

Small discrepancies between sexes in measures of timely reperfusion for STEMI still exist. No significant sex differences were observed in either 30-day or 1-year mortality.

Radial Artery Access Complications: Prevention, Diagnosis and Management

The transradial approach for cardiac catheterization, coronary angiography, and percutaneous intervention is associated with a lower risk of access site-related complications compared to the transfemoral approach. However, with increasing utilization of transradial access for not only coronary procedures but also peripheral vascular procedures, healthcare personnel are more likely to encounter radial access site complications, which can be associated with morbidity and mortality. There is significant heterogeneity in the reporting of incidence, manifestations, and management of radial access site complications, at least partly due to vague presentation and under-diagnosis. Therefore, physicians performing procedures via transradial access should be aware of possible complications and remain vigilant to prevent their occurrence. Intraprocedural complications of transradial access procedures, which include spasm, catheter kinking, and arterial dissection or perforation, may lead to patient discomfort, increased procedure time, and a higher rate of access site cross over. Post-procedural complications such as radial artery occlusion, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, or nerve injury could lead to patient discomfort and limb dysfunction. When radial access site complications occur, comprehensive evaluation and prompt treatment is necessary to reduce long-term consequences. In this report, we review the incidence, clinical factors, and management strategies for radial access site complications associated with cardiac catheterization.

Radial Hemostasis Is Facilitated With a Potassium Ferrate Hemostatic Patch: The STAT2 Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this trial was to test whether the potassium ferrate hemostatic patch (PFHP) as an adjunct to the TR Band (TRB) facilitated an early deflation protocol.

BACKGROUND

Shorter TRB compression times may reduce the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO) and reduce observation time after transradial access.

METHODS

A total of 443 patients were randomized to the TRB or PFHP + TRB, with complete TRB deflation attempted 60 minutes postprocedure. The primary outcome was the time to successful full deflation of the TRB without bleeding, with secondary outcomes of time to discharge and complications including hematoma, RAO, or bleeding requiring intervention beyond TRB reinflation.

RESULTS

Time to complete TRB deflation was 66 ± 14 minutes with the PFHP vs 113 ± 56 minutes for the TRB alone (P < 0.001). Minor rebleeding requiring TRB reinflation was much more frequent without the PFHP (0% vs 67.7%; P < 0.001) with 2.3 ± 1.3 additional reinflation and deflation attempts needed for hemostasis. Hematomas developed in 4.0% of the PFHP group and 6.8% of the TRB group (P = 0.20). RAO was rare (<1%), although 41% of patients received <5,000 U heparin. Among percutaneous coronary intervention patients, time to TRB deflation (68 ± 15 minutes vs 138 ± 62 minutes; P < 0.001) and composite complications (10.0% vs 24.2%; P = 0.04) were reduced with the PFHP.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the TRB alone, the PFHP facilitated early 60-minute TRB deflation following transradial catheterization, with a numeric reduction in vascular complications. RAO occurs rarely with early deflation regardless of heparin dose. (Comparing TR Band to StatSeal in Conjunction With TR Band II [StatSeal II]; NCT04046952).

Short-Term Postoperative Use of Rivaroxaban to Prevent Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Coronary Procedure: The RESTORE Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Adequate procedural anticoagulation is crucial for radial artery occlusion (RAO) prevention in patients undergoing transradial access coronary catheterization, although the effect of postprocedural anticoagulation lack thorough investigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical value of short-term postoperative anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for 24 hours and 1-month RAO prevention in patients who received transradial coronary procedures.

METHODS

A total of 382 patients were randomized to receive either placebo (control group) or rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for a period of 7 days (rivaroxaban group) to evaluate the effect of the rivaroxaban in the prevention of 24 hours and 1-month RAO assessed by Doppler ultrasound.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the incidence of 24-hour RAO (8.9% versus 11.5%; P=0.398) between the rivaroxaban group and control group (odds ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.39-1.46]; P=0.399). In contrast, the 1-month RAO (3.8% versus 11.5%; P=0.011) was significantly reduced in patients who received rivaroxaban as compared with those who did placebo (odds ratio, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.08-0.65]; P=0.006). For patients with 24-hour RAO, the rivaroxaban group was associated with higher recanalization rate of the radial artery (69.2% versus 30.0%; P=0.027) compared with the control group. No significant differences can be observed between the 2 groups for access-site complications or bleeding events.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term postoperative anticoagulation with rivaroxaban did not reduce the rate of 24-hour RAO but improved 1-month RAO, because of higher recanalization of the radial artery. However, larger clinical trials are needed to prove our results.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn; Unique identifier: ChiCTR1900026974.

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.

Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock Interventional Approach to Management in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories

Despite advances in early reperfusion and a technologic renaissance in the space of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS), Cardiogenic Shock (CS) remains the leading cause of in-hospital mortality following Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). Given the challenges inherent to conducting adequately powered randomized controlled trials in this time-sensitive, hemodynamically complex, and highly lethal syndrome, treatment recommendations have been derived from AMI patients without shock. In this review, we aimed to (1) examine the pathophysiology and the new classification system for CS; (2) provide a comprehensive, evidence-based review for best practices for interventional management of AMI-CS in the cardiac catheterization laboratory; and (3) highlight the concept of how frailty and geriatric syndromes can be integrated into the decision process and where medical futility lies in the spectrum of AMI-CS care. Management strategies in the cardiac catheterization laboratory for CS include optimal vascular access, periprocedural antithrombotic therapy, culprit lesion versus multi-vessel revascularization, selective utilization of hemodynamic MCS tailored to individual shock hemometabolic profiles, and management of cardiac arrest. Efforts to advance clinical evidence for patients with CS should be concentrated on (1) the coordination of multi-center registries; (2) development of pragmatic clinical trials designed to evaluate innovative therapies; (3) establishment of multidisciplinary care models that will inform quality care and improve clinical outcomes.

Radial versus femoral access for left main percutaneous coronary intervention: An analysis from the Veterans Affairs Clinical, Reporting, and Tracking Program

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare clinical characteristics and procedural outcomes of left main percutaneous interventions (LM-PCI) by transradial (TRA) versus transfemoral (TFA) approach in the VA healthcare system.

BACKGROUND

TRA for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is steadily increasing. However, the frequency and efficacy of TRA for LM-PCI remain less studied.

METHODS

All LM-PCIs performed in the VA healthcare system were identified for fiscal year 2008 through 2018. Patients' baseline characteristics and procedure-related variables were compared by access site. Both short- and long-term clinical outcomes were analyzed using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 4004 LM-PCI were performed in the VA via either radial or femoral access from 2008 to 2018. Among these, 596 (14.9%) LM PCIs were performed via TRA. Use of TRA for LM-PCI increased from 2.2% to 31.5% over the study period. Propensity matched outcome analysis, comparing TRA versus TFA, showed a similar procedural success (98.4% for TRA vs. 97.8% for TFA; RR: 1.01 [0.98, 1.03]) and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (25.9% for TRA vs. 26.8% TFA; RR: 0.96 [0.74, 1.25]). There were no statistically significant differences among secondary outcomes analyses including major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Use of TRA for LM-PCI has been steadily increasing in the VA healthcare system. These findings demonstrate similar procedural success and 1-year MACE across access strategies, suggesting an opportunity to continue increasing TRA use for LM-PCI.

Distal Radial Artery Approach to Prevent Radial Artery Occlusion Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the rate of proximal radial artery occlusion (RAO) with Doppler ultrasound between distal and conventional radial access 24 h and 30 days after a transradial coronary procedure.

BACKGROUND

The use of distal radial access to prevent proximal RAO (PRAO) in the proximal segment at 24 h and 30 days after a procedure, compared with conventional radial access, is unknown.

METHODS

This was a prospective, comparative, longitudinal, randomized study. A total of 282 patients were randomized to either proximal radial access (n = 142) or distal radial access (n = 140) to evaluate the superiority of the distal approach in the prevention of PRAO with Doppler ultrasound 24 h and 30 days after a transradial coronary procedure.

RESULTS

In the per protocol analysis, the rates of PRAO at 24 h and 30 days were 8.4% and 5.6% in the proximal group and 0.7% and 0.7% in the distal group, respectively (24 h: odds ratio [OR]: 12.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6 to 100.0; p = 0.002; 30 days: OR: 8.2; 95% CI: 1.0 to 67.2; p = 0.019). In an intention-to-treat analysis, the 24-h and 30-day rates of PRAO were 8.8% and 6.4% for proximal radial access and 1.2% and 0.6% in the distal radial access group (24 h: OR: 7.4; 95% CI: 1.6 to 34.3; p = 0.003; 30 days: OR: 10.6; 95% CI: 1.3 to 86.4; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Distal radial access prevents RAO in the proximal segment at 24 h and 30 days after the procedure compared with conventional radial access.

Randomized trial comparing radial hemostasis techniques; catechol conjugated chitosan pad (InnoSEAL) versus pneumatic compression band

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectives: to compare radial artery occlusion rate (RAO) after cardiac catheterization between catecholamine-chitosan pad (InnoSEAL) and pneumatic compression device (PCD) and to compare difference in hemostasis time and radial monitoring termination time between two arms. Secondary objectives: to compare radial site bleeding and ease of use of two methods by cath-lab technicians.

BACKGROUND

Hemostatic pads may be an effective alternative to PCD with lesser chance of access site complications with advantage of shortened compression time.

METHODS

Patients (N = 606) undergoing trans-radial, diagnostic or interventional procedures were randomized to either InnoSEAL arm or PCD. RAO was assessed using US Duplex; performed 6-24 hr posthemostatic device removal. Time to hemostasis was recorded as per defined protocols. Ease of use among cath-lab technicians was assessed through 5 point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Data of 597 patients was analyzed (299 InnoSEAL, 298 PCD). RAO rate was 8.5% in InnoSEAL and 9.4% in PCD arm (p value >.05). The pooled median hemostasis time and time to termination of radial monitoring was 42 versus 225 min and 50 versus 240 min in InnoSEAL and PCD arms, respectively (p value: <.01). There was no difference in Grade I/II hematoma (InnoSEAL: 1.3% vs. PCD: 3.4%). InnoSEAL was marginally acceptable compared to PCD by technicians.

CONCLUSION

Hemostasis time is significantly shorter in InnoSEAL arm with reasonable acceptability to its usage among cath lab staff. RAO and bleeding complications are comparable between the arms. Based on our findings, it seems feasible to include Chitosan based hemostasis pad routinely in cath lab.

Radial vs. Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Artery Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of transradial vs transfemoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of STEMI patients who underwent transradial angiography (TRA) compared to transfemoral angiography (TFA). Our outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause mortality, severe bleeding, access site bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major vascular complications. Summary statistics are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

In a pooled analysis of 17 RCTs with 12,118 randomized patients, the use of transradial compared to transfemoral approach in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock was associated with a significant reduction in MACE [OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.73-0.99; p = 0.04; NNT = 111; I² = 0%)] and all-cause mortality [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.57-0.88; p < 0.01; NNT = 111; I² = 0%)]. Severe bleeding [OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.44-0.74; p < 0.01; NNT = 77; I² = 0%)], access-site bleeding [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.26-0.59; p < 0.01; NNT = 67; I² = 24%)], and major vascular complications [OR of 0.31 (95% CI 0.17-0.55; p < 0.01; NNT = 125; I² = 0%)] were lower in TRA compared to TFA. There was no difference in stroke (0.6% vs 0.5%) or recurrent myocardial infarction (2.01% vs 2.02%) between the two approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

For coronary intervention in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock, there is a clear mortality benefit with the TRA over TFA. Further studies are needed to see if this mortality benefit persists over the long-term.

Transradial access in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Stratified analysis by shock severity

BACKGROUND

Transradial access (TRA) is associated with improved survival and reduced vascular complications in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Limited data exist regarding TRA utilization and outcomes for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). We sought to assess the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of TRA in AMI-CS.

METHODS

One-hundred and fifty-three patients with AMI-CS were stratified into tertiles of disease severity using the CardShock score. The primary endpoint was successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), defined as Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction III flow with survival to 30 days.

RESULTS

Mean age was 66 years, 72% were men, and 47% had diabetes. TRA was the preferred access site in patients with low and intermediate disease severity. Overall, 50 (32%) patients experienced major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events; most events (78%) occurred in patients undergoing transfemoral access (TFA) in the intermediate-high tertiles of CS severity. Of the 41 (27%) total bleeding events, 32% occurred at the coronary angiography access site, of which 92% were in the TFA group. The use of ultrasound (US) guidance for TFA resulted in reduced coronary access-site bleeding (8.5 vs. 33.0%, p = .01). In a hierarchical logistic regression model, utilizing TRA did not result in lower odds of successful PCI (Odds ratio [OR]: 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-3.40).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that TRA is feasible across the entire spectrum of AMI-CS and is associated with reduced coronary access-site bleeding. In addition, US-guided TFA is associated with reductions in access-site bleeding and vascular complications. Concerted efforts should be made to incorporate vascular access protocols into existing CS algorithms in dedicated shock care centers.

Ipsilateral transulnar artery approach catheterizations after failure of the radial approach-Are two sheaths in the same arm safe?

AIMS

To assess the safety and feasibility of ipsilateral transulnar access (TUA) after failure of radial access (TRA), with two sheaths placed in the radial and ulnar arteries (RA and UA) in the same arm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients with TUA due to inability to cross from ipsilateral TRA in the period from March 2011 until September 2020 were included in the study. We examined clinical and procedure characteristics, access site bleeding and ischemic complications and failure mode of initial TRA. Patients were assessed by duplex ultrasound post-procedure (at an average of 56 ± 31 months) and followed clinically (functional and pain assessment).

RESULTS

In this period, out of 51,866 patients 112 (0.2%) had a transulnar artery approach due to inability to cross from ipsilateral radial approach. Mean age of patients was 65 ± 11 years with 44% females. Cause for crossover to ipsilateral TUA was inability to cross a RA anomaly in 107 (95%) patients, mostly due to the presence of a "360°" RA loop in 88 patients. Type 3 and 4 EASY Score hematoma was present in 3 patients (2.6%). Six (5.3%) of the patients had new ipsilateral radial artery occlusion noted on duplex on follow up. There were no ulnar artery occlusions detected. There were no clinical or ischemic hand complications seen during a median 4.3 years of follow up.

CONCLUSION

Ipsilateral transulnar artery access following failed radial artery access crossing is safe and successful for coronary angiography and intervention with low rates of complications.

SCAI expert consensus update on best practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: This statement was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) in April 2021

The current document commissioned by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) and endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society represents a comprehensive update to the 2012 and 2016 consensus documents on patient-centered best practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Comprising updates to staffing and credentialing, as well as evidence-based updates to the pre-, intra-, and post-procedural logistics, clinical standards and patient flow, the document also includes an expanded section on CCL governance, administration, and approach to quality metrics. This update also acknowledges the collaboration with various specialties, including discussion of the heart team approach to management, and working with electrophysiology colleagues in particular. It is hoped that this document will be utilized by hospitals, health systems, as well as regulatory bodies involved in assuring and maintaining quality, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of patient throughput in this high volume area.

Transradial Interventions at the Forefront of Innovation

Interventional cardiology has witnessed tremendous changes over the years from a mainly diagnostic approach in an elective population to therapeutic strategies in critically ill patients. Currently, we can treat a broad spectrum of coronary artery, peripheral artery, and structural heart diseases with less invasive, percutaneous approaches that we did not anticipate to be possible just a decade ago. It is certain that the interventional techniques will see further development and we will be able to treat by percutaneous methods more conditions previously thought beyond our reach. Regardless of the advances in catheter-based diagnostic and therapeutic techniques, one thing remains constant. They all require vascular access. And, vascular access is the first technical part of any percutaneous cardiovascular procedure that can determine its overall success. High-quality data together with the availability of training courses for interventional cardiologists and fellows-in-training ensure systematic use of the transradial approach (TRA) which has demonstrated a considerable benefit compared to transfemoral approach both in chronic and acute coronary syndromes. Constant improvement of TRA techniques will further facilitate transradial endovascular and structural interventions, and the growing use for high-risk and complex percutaneous coronary interventions. A continuously growing body of evidence is focused on surpassing current TRA limitations (specifically radial artery occlusion) and expanding alternative vascular accesses such as transulnar approach or distal TRA ("snuff-box" technique). Should this downsizing trend continue, we could see a further paradigm shift toward using the snuff-box technique.

Use of the left radial artery as vascular access for coronary angiography and as a bypass conduit: A clinical dilemma?

PURPOSE

International coronary revascularization guidelines recommend both, transradial vascular access for coronary angiography/intervention and use of the radial artery as a conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). These recommendations may pose a clinical dilemma, as transradial access exposes these arteries to vascular trauma which makes them potentially unsuitable as future grafts. In this study, we investigated the awareness and views of cardiologists on these guideline recommendations.

METHODS

We performed semi-structured interviews with 50 cardiologists from 19 centers, who regularly perform coronary angiographies or interventions, and outlined clinical scenarios to evaluate their preference of vascular access. In addition, we assessed whether preference was related to sub-specialization.

RESULTS

The interviewed cardiologists had 16 ± 9.3 years of professional experience. There were 23 (46%) cardiologists from 7 centers without percutaneous coronary intervention facilities, and 27 (56%) cardiologists from 12 interventional centers. All 50 (100%) cardiologists indicated familiarity with the guidelines, yet 28 (56%) said not to be familiar with the aforementioned dilemma, and 9 (18%) stated there was no dilemma at all. Responses did not differ significantly between interventional (n = 28) and non-interventional (n = 22) cardiologists; however, if the right radial artery was unavailable (e.g., occluded), interventional cardiologists more often said to prefer access via the left radial artery (18/28 (64%) vs. 5/22 (23%), p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

More than half of the interviewed cardiologists indicated that they had not realized that left transradial access preceding CABG may preclude later use of this artery as a conduit. Notably, in case of unavailability of the right radial artery, interventional cardiologists preferred left transradial access more often than non-interventional cardiologists.

Collateral Circulation Testing of the Hand- Is it Relevant Now? A Narrative Review

Testing for collateral circulation of the hand before any radial artery procedure has been a subject of many controversies. Neither the Allen's test (AT) nor the plethysmography based Barbeau test, adequately and reliably test for collateral circulation. With growing interest in radial approaches for vascular procedures, its common use for arterial monitoring and blood gas sampling, there has been a growing interest in the relevance of assessing collateral hand circulation. Multiple studies now refute the utility of collateral testing, yet it continues to be propagated as an essential triaging assessment tool by educators. Allen's, or modified Allen tests (MAT) are operator dependent and often subjected to observational bias. Barbeau test is more objective, however, it fails to show added benefit in assessing pre-procedural patency. Despite studies questioning the validity of collateral circulation assessment, these tests continue to preclude radial approach. There is no standardization for being considered an abnormal test across literature and the significance of an abnormal test translating into a clinical outcome has not been investigated in prior studies. This may be attributed to the robust vascular supply of the hand, connections at the digital circulation level and vessel recruitment in an event of occlusion. We reviewed this topic extensively and make an argument that non-invasive collateral testing should be abandoned as a triage tool for radial artery procedures such as arterial punctures, arterial monitoring, and transradial vascular procedures.

Impact of the Use of a Larger Forearm Artery on the Efficacy and Safety of Transradial and Transulnar Access: A Randomized Trial with Preprocedural Ultrasonography

(1) Background: We aimed to assess the impact of the selection of a larger radial or ulnar artery on the efficacy of access and vascular complications, based on preprocedural ultrasonographic examination. (2) Methods: This prospective, randomized trial included patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients were randomized into either a larger ulnar artery (UA) or radial artery (RA) group or smaller UA/RA group. The primary endpoint was successful CAG/PCI without crossover to another artery. The secondary endpoints were incidences of radial or ulnar artery occlusion (RAO/UAO) at the 24 h and 30 day follow-up. (3) Results: Between 2017 and 2018, 200 patients (107 men, mean age 68 ± 8 years) were enrolled. The success of CAG/PCI via the access site was 98% and 83% (p < 0.001) in the larger UA/RA group and smaller UA/RA group, respectively. The independent factor for CAG/PCI success was the larger artery (OR 9.8, 95%CI 2.11–45.5; p < 0.005). The larger UA/RA was superior, with RAO/UAO at 24 h: OR 0.07, 95%CI 0.09–0.61; p < 0.016; and RAO/UAO at 30 days: OR 0.25, 95%CI 0.05–0.12; p < 0.001. (4) Conclusions: Larger artery access was shown to be more efficient and safer than recessive forearm artery access.

The "lend a hand" external bypass technique: External radial to femoral bypass for antegrade perfusion of an ischemic limb with occlusive large bore sheath - A novel and favorable approach

An occlusive large bore sheath is a frequently encountered situation in cases of cardiogenic shock (CS) requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Resultant acute limb ischemia could be a catastrophic complication which significantly affects the prognosis of an already sick patient population. A novel, yet simple, technique using the radial artery, instead of the ipsilateral or contralateral common femoral artery (CFA), as a donor vessel of an external bypass which provides antegrade perfusion to a limb with an occlusive large bore sheath is hereby described. Radial access (RA) has been shown to improve mortality in acute coronary syndrome; however, it is sometimes avoided by some operators in CS cases due to the possible appropriate need for MCS. This technique offers a substitution of a second CFA access for a RA in order to provide adequate ipsilateral limb perfusion. Hence, one can start a CS case with a default RA and perform peripheral angiography after diagnostic cardiac catheterization. If the peripheral vasculature is inappropriate for MCS, the patient would have already benefited from the mortality advantage of RA. If obstructive PAD is absent, then an occlusive Impella sheath can be placed in a CFA after antegrade ipsilateral superficial femoral artery (SFA) access is obtained for an external radial to femoral bypass, while the PCI is performed through the Impella sheath according to the single access PCI technique. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of this new approach are described and compared with each of the traditionally known external and internal femoral bypass techniques.

Vessel Preservation in Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major noncommunicable disorder and has become the 9th leading cause of death in the United States. Most patients with CKD in the United States choose hemodialysis as their treatment of choice. A functioning arteriovenous access is essential to reduce dependence on central venous catheters. An arteriovenous fistula (AVF), though the preferred access, has a major limitation with a high primary maturation failure rate. A functioning AVF requires well-preserved vessels, both arteries and veins, along with an acceptable cardiac pump function. Vessel preservation is crucial from a surgeon's perspective to create an AVF but is also relevant for maturation. More recently, concerns regarding the sequelae of transradial approach for percutaneous cardiac interventions have been raised. Educating and empowering the patient is the first step, but equally important is to educate all caregivers involved in providing care to a patient with advanced CKD. The current review evaluates the strategies used to preserve peripheral veins, central veins, and peripheral arteries.

Short Durations of Radial Hemostatic Device After Diagnostic Transradial Cardiac Catheterization: The PRACTICAL-2 Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the most common complication following transradial approach (TRA) for cardiac catheterisation. Our aim was to assess if decreasing radial hemostatic device (RHD) time reduces the risk of RAO among individuals receiving small sheath sizes with no adjunctive heparin.

METHODS

We randomised 450 individuals undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization via TRA to 3 durations of RHD time: 10, 20, or 30 minutes. After these time periods, the RHD was gradually released over 20 minutes. The primary efficacy end point was forearm hematoma grade ≥ 2 (5-10 cm) and the primary safety end point was RAO (as determined by Doppler ultrasound) 1 hour after RHD removal (before discharge).

RESULTS

The mean age was 66 years and 64% were male. Five-French sheaths were used in all patients. Hematoma grade ≥ 2 occurred in only 1 patient, who was in the 20-minute group (P = 0.39). RAO occurred in 6.7% of patients in the 10-minute group, 10.7% in the 20-minute group and 6% in the 30-minute group (P = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients receiving small-caliber sheaths without adjunctive heparin, the incidence of forearm hematoma and RAO are low. Shorter durations of RHD time did not further reduce the risk of these complications.