Article

Vascular complications and access crossover in 10,676 transradial percutaneous coronary procedures.

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
American heart journal (Impact Factor: 4.65). 02/2012; 163(2):230-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2011.10.019
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Randomized trials have shown that transradial approach, compared with transfemoral, reduces vascular complications (VCs) of coronary procedures in selected patients. Yet, radial approach is associated to a variety of access-site VC as well as to a higher failure rate compared with femoral access.
At our institution, from May 2005 to May 2010, we prospectively assessed the occurrence and outcome of VC in consecutive patients undergoing transradial percutaneous coronary procedures performed by trained radial operators. The need of access crossover to complete the procedure was also prospectively investigated. Vascular complications were classified as "radial related" or "nonradial related" (in the case of access crossover). Vascular complications were also classified "major" if requiring surgery and/or blood transfusions or causing hemoglobin drop >3 g/dL.
Ten thousand six hundred seventy-six procedures were performed using a right radial (87.5%), left radial (12.4%), or ulnar (0.1%) artery as primary access. A total of 53 VCs (0.5%) were observed: 44 (83%) radial related and 9 (17%) nonradial related. Major VCs occurred in 16 patients only (0.2%) and were radial related in 10 (62.5%) and nonradial related in 6 (37.5%) patients. Vascular complications rate was stable during the study and independent of operator's experience. Access crossover rate was 4.9%, differed according to the operator radial experience and significantly decreased over time.
The present study, conducted in a center with high volume of radial procedures, shows that transradial approach is associated with a very low rate of VC, which is stable over time. On the contrary, access crossover rate decreased over time and differed according to operator (radial) experience.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
257 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is an alternative to open repair in patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms who are neither fit nor suitable for standard open or endovascular repair. Chimney and snorkel grafts are other endovascular alternatives but frequently require bilateral upper extremity access that has been associated with a 3% to 10% risk of stroke. However, upper extremity access is also frequently required for FEVAR because of the caudal orientation of the visceral vessels. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of upper extremity access for FEVAR and the associated morbidity.
    Journal of Vascular Surgery 08/2014; · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transradial access (TRA) is becoming increasingly used worldwide for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after acute coronary syndromes (ACS). TRA compared with transfemoral access (TFA) has been noted to improve clinical outcomes in clinical trials and large registry cohort studies. However, much of the benefits of TRA PCI are noted in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI (PPCI), where TRA PCI has been associated with reductions in major bleeding events and potentially lower short- and long-term mortality. Although much less data exists for TRA PCI in UA/NSTEMI, similar reductions in bleeding and mortality have not been consistently described. Differences in outcome benefit with TRA PCI between various ACS subtypes may be attributable to the potentially increased inherent risk of periprocedural bleeding in STEMI compared with UA/NSTEMI. Pre- and intraprocedural factors associated with STEMI treatment, such as use of pharmacoinvasive therapy and aggressive antithrombotic regimens likely increase bleeding risk amongst patients. In conclusion, this review describes the evidence for TRA PCI across the spectrum of ACS and highlights why differences in clinical benefit may exist between ACS subtypes.
    The American Journal of Cardiology. 01/2014;
  • Source
    Cardiovascular revascularization medicine: including molecular interventions 06/2014; 15(4):193-194.

Full-text

Download
85 Downloads
Available from
May 28, 2014