Evolving Techniques to Improve Radial/Ulnar Artery Access: Crossover Rate of 0.3% in 1,000 Consecutive Patients Undergoing Cardiac Catheterization and/or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention via the Wrist : RADIAL/ULNAR ACCESS WITH 0.3% CROSSOVER RATE

We sought to compare, through a meta-analytic process, the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary procedures in terms of clinical and procedural outcomes. The radial approach has been increasingly used as an alternative to femoral access. Several trials have compared these two approaches, with inconclusive results. The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and conference proceedings from major cardiologic associations were searched. Random-effect odds ratios (ORs) for failure of the procedure (crossover to different entry site or impossibility to perform the planned procedure), entry site complications (major hematoma, vascular surgery, or arteriovenous fistula), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, emergency revascularization, or stroke, were computed. Twelve randomized trials (n = 3,224) were included in the analysis. The risk of MACE was similar for the radial versus femoral approach (OR 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 1.48; p = 0.7). Instead, radial access was associated with a significantly lower rate of entry site complications (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42; p < 0.0001), even if at the price of a higher rate of procedural failure (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.63 to 6.71; p < 0.001). The radial approach for coronary procedures appears as a safe alternative to femoral access. Moreover, radial access virtually eliminates local vascular complications, thanks to a time-sparing hemostasis technique. However, gaining radial access requires higher technical skills, thus yielding an overall lower success rate. Nonetheless, a clear ongoing trend toward equalization of the two procedures, in terms of procedural success, is evident through the years, probably due to technologic progress of materials and increased operator experience.

Transradial access is a recently developed alternative for diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Its effects on quality of life after the procedure, patient preference, and cost are unknown. We performed a randomized single-center trial in which 99 patients underwent transfemoral and 101 underwent transradial diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Quality of life was measured with the SF-36 and visual analog scales at baseline, 1 day, and 1 week. Patients were examined at 1 day and at 1 week after for complications. Costs were measured prospectively. One patient in the femoral group and 2 in the radial group crossed over to the alternative access site. There were no major access site complications. One patient in the transfemoral group had a minor stroke. Transradial catheterization significantly reduced median length of stay (3.6 vs 10.4 hours, P <.0001). Over the first day after the procedure, measures of bodily pain, back pain, and walking ability favored the transradial group (P <.05 for all comparisons). Over the week after the procedure, changes in role limitations caused by physical health, bodily pain, and back pain favored the transradial group (P <.05 for all comparisons). There was a strong patient preference for transradial catheterization as well (P <. 0001). Transradial catheterization led to significant reductions in bed, pharmacy, and total hospital costs ($2010 vs $2299, P <.0001). Among patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization, transradial access leads to improved quality of life after the procedure, is strongly preferred by patients, and reduces hospital costs.

Systematic use of coronary stents and optimized platelet aggregation inhibition has greatly improved the short-term results of percutaneous coronary interventions. Transradial percutaneous coronary interventions have been associated with a low risk of bleeding complications. It is unknown whether moderate- and high-risk patients can be discharged safely the same day after uncomplicated transradial percutaneous coronary interventions. We randomized 1005 patients after a bolus of abciximab and uncomplicated transradial percutaneous coronary stent implantation either to same-day home discharge and no infusion of abciximab (group 1, n=504) or to overnight hospitalization and a standard 12-hour infusion of abciximab (group 2, n=501). The primary composite end point of the study was the 30-day incidence of any of the following events: death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, major bleeding, repeat hospitalization, access site complications, and severe thrombocytopenia. The noninferiority of same-day home discharge and bolus of abciximab only compared with overnight hospitalization and abciximab bolus and infusion was evaluated. Two thirds of patients presented with unstable angina and approximately 20% presented with high-risk acute coronary syndrome prior to the procedure. The incidence of the primary end point was 20.4% in group 1 and 18.2% in group 2 (P=0.017 for noninferiority) with a troponin T-based definition of myocardial infarction; the incidence of the primary end point was 11.1% in group 1 and 9.6% in group 2 (P=0.0004 for noninferiority) with a creatinine kinase myocardial band-based definition of myocardial infarction. No death occurred. Rate of major bleeding in both groups was extremely low at 0.8% and 0.2%, respectively. From 504 patients randomized in group 1, 88% were discharged home the same day. Our data suggest that same-day home discharge after uncomplicated transradial coronary stenting and bolus only of abciximab is not clinically inferior, in a wide spectrum of patients, to the standard overnight hospitalization and a bolus followed by a 12-hour infusion. This novel approach offers a safe strategy for same-day home discharge after uncomplicated coronary intervention.