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: 4.56). 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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Giovanni Tinelli, Jul 06, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
291 Views
  • Source
    Cardiovascular revascularization medicine: including molecular interventions 06/2014; 15(4):193-194. DOI:10.1016/j.carrev.2014.05.003
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the United States, approximately 1.7 million cardiac catheterizations are performed each year, making it the fifth most common procedure. In this article, the author reviews the literature on the alternative transradial approach versus the traditional transfemoral approach for cardiac catheterization. Through a meta-analysis, clinical trials were thoroughly analyzed. The clinical and procedural outcomes are compared to provide evidence that the transradial approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty is associated with lower risks of adverse outcomes compared with the traditional transfemoral approach. An educational focus highlights the role of the nurse practitioner to ensure proper assessment and management of patients after transradial access.
    Critical care nursing quarterly 01/2014; 37(2):159-69. DOI:10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since its advent over two decades ago, transradial access for cardiac catheterization and percutaneous intervention has evolved into a versatile and evidence-based approach for containing the risks of access-site bleeding and vascular complications without compromising the technical range or success associated with contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Early studies demonstrated reduced rates of vascular complications and access-site bleeding with radial-access catheterization but at the cost of increased access-site crossover and reduced procedural success. Contemporary data demonstrate that while the rates of major bleeding with femoral-access PCI in standard-risk cohorts have declined significantly over time, the transradial approach still retains significant advantages by way of reductions in vascular complications, length of stay, and enhanced patient comfort and patient preference over the femoral approach, while maintaining procedural success. Major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding are lowest with the transradial approach when procedures are performed at high-volume radial centers, by experienced radial operators, or in the context of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Choice of procedural anticoagulation appears to differentially impact access-site bleeding in transradial versus transfemoral PCI; however, non-access site bleeding remains a significant contributor to major bleeding in both groups. Despite abundant supporting data, adoption of transradial technique as the default strategy in cardiac catheterization in the United States has lagged behind many other countries. However, recent trends suggest that interest and adoption of the technique in the United States is growing at a brisker pace than previously observed.
    Current Cardiology Reports 06/2012; 14(4):502-9. DOI:10.1007/s11886-012-0287-5