4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Transradial access: lessons learned from cardiology

      , , , , ,
      Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
      BMJ

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Innovations in interventional cardiology historically predate those in neuro-intervention. As such, studying trends in interventional cardiology can be useful in exploring avenues to optimise neuro-interventional techniques. One such cardiology innovation has been the steady conversion of arterial puncture sites from transfemoral access (TFA) to transradial access (TRA), a paradigm shift supported by safety benefits for patients. While neuro-intervention has unique anatomical challenges, the access itself is identical. As such, examining the extensive cardiology literature on the radial approach has the potential to offer valuable lessons for the neuro-interventionalist audience who may be unfamiliar with this body of work. Therefore, we present here a report, particularly for neuro-interventionalists, regarding the best practices for TRA by reviewing the relevant cardiology literature. We focused our review on the data most relevant to our audience, namely that surrounding the access itself. By reviewing the cardiology literature on metrics such as safety profiles, cost and patient satisfaction differences between TFA and TRA, as well as examining the technical nuances of the procedure and post-procedural care, we hope to give physicians treating complex cerebrovascular disease a broader data-driven understanding of TRA.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

          Small randomized trials have demonstrated that radial access reduces access site complications compared to a femoral approach. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine if radial access reduces major bleeding and as a result can reduce death and ischemic events compared to femoral access. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from 1980 to April 2008. Relevant conference abstracts from 2005 to April 2008 were searched. Randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access coronary angiography or intervention that reported major bleeding, death, myocardial infarction, and procedural or fluoroscopy time were included. A fixed-effects model was used with a random effects for sensitivity analysis. Radial access reduced major bleeding by 73% compared to femoral access (0.05% vs 2.3%, OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.16, 0.45], P < .001). There was a trend for reductions in the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (2.5% vs 3.8%, OR 0.71 [95% CI 0.49-1.01], P = .058) as well as death (1.2% vs 1.8% OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.42-1.30], P = .29). There was a trend for higher rate of inability to the cross lesion with wire, balloon, or stent during percutaneous coronary intervention with radial access (4.7% vs 3.4% OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.87, 1.94], P = .21). Radial access reduced hospital stay by 0.4 days (95% CI 0.2-0.5, P = .0001). Radial access reduced major bleeding and there was a corresponding trend for reduction in ischemic events compared to femoral access. Large randomized trials are needed to confirm the benefit of radial access on death and ischemic events.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prevention of radial artery occlusion-patent hemostasis evaluation trial (PROPHET study): a randomized comparison of traditional versus patency documented hemostasis after transradial catheterization.

            The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of hemostasis with patency in avoiding radial artery occlusion after transradial catheterization. Radial artery occlusion is an infrequent but discouraging complication of transradial access. It is related to factors such as sheath to artery ratio and is less common in patients receiving heparin. Despite being clinically silent in most cases, it limits future transradial access. Four hundred thirty-six consecutive patients undergoing transradial catheterization were prospectively enrolled in the study. Two hundred nineteen patients were randomized to group I, and underwent conventional pressure application for hemostasis. Two hundred seventeen patients were randomized to group II and underwent pressure application confirming radial artery patency using Barbeau's test. Radial artery patency was studied at 24 hr and 30 days using Barbeau's test. Thirty-eight patients had evidence of radial artery occlusion at 24 hr. Twenty patients had persistent evidence of radial artery occlusion at 1 month. Group II, with documented patency during hemostatic compression, had a statistically and clinically lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (59% decrease at 24 hr and 75% decrease at 30 days, P < 0.05), compared with patients in group I. Low body weight patients were at significantly higher risk of radial artery occlusion. No procedural variables were found to be associated with radial artery occlusion. Patent hemostasis is highly effective in reducing radial artery occlusion after radial access and guided compression should be performed to maintain radial artery patency at the time of hemostasis, to prevent future radial artery occlusion. Copyright 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Adoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007-2012).

              Radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (r-PCI) is associated with reduced vascular complications; however, previous reports have shown that <2% of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in the United States are performed via the radial approach. Our aims were to evaluate temporal trends in r-PCI and compare procedural outcomes between r-PCI and transfemoral PCI. We conducted a retrospective cohort study from the CathPCI registry (n=2 820 874 procedures from 1381 sites) between January 2007 and September 2012. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the adjusted association between r-PCI and bleeding, vascular complications, and procedural success, using transfemoral PCI as the reference. Outcomes in high-risk subgroups such as age ≥75 years, women, and patients with acute coronary syndrome were also examined. The proportion of r-PCI procedures increased from 1.2% in quarter 1 2007 to 16.1% in quarter 3 2012 and accounted for 6.3% of total procedures from 2007 to 2012 (n=178 643). After multivariable adjustment, r-PCI use in the studied cohort of patients was associated with lower risk of bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.54) and lower risk of vascular complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.50) in comparison with transfemoral PCI. The reduction in bleeding and vascular complications was consistent across important subgroups of age, sex, and clinical presentation. There has been increasing adoption of r-PCI in the United States. Transradial PCI now accounts for 1 of 6 PCIs performed in contemporary clinical practice. In comparison with traditional femoral access, transradial PCI is associated with lower vascular and bleeding complication rates.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
                J NeuroIntervent Surg
                BMJ
                1759-8478
                1759-8486
                April 13 2018
                May 2018
                May 2018
                September 29 2017
                : 10
                : 5
                : 487-492
                Article
                10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013295
                28963366
                af1f6b1e-6fc5-4efb-9882-5bd1e593cc71
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article