Randomized comparison of rapid ambulation using radial, 4 French femoral access, or femoral access with AngioSeal closure

Comparison of Access Site-Related Complications and Quality of Life in Patients after Invasive Cardiology Procedures According to the Use of Radial, Femoral, or Brachial Approach

The radial approach (RA) is the most common in invasive cardiology, but depending on the clinical situation, the femoral approach (FA) and brachial approach (BA) are also used. The BA is associated with the highest odds of complications so it is used mainly if a first-choice approach fails. The aim of the study was to assess clinical outcomes after invasive cardiology procedures stratified by the use of the RA, FA, and BA, with a focus on access site-related complications, quality of life (QoL), and patients' perspective. A total of 250 procedures (RA: 98; FA: 99; BA: 53) performed between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Puncture site-related complications, vascular events, patient preferences, and QoL were assessed by the analysis of medical records and telephone follow-up using a proprietary questionnaire and the modified EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. Patients from the RA group received the smallest volume of contrast during a percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) procedure (RA vs. FA vs. BA: 180 (150-240) mL vs. 200 (180-270) mL vs. 190 (100-200) mL, p = 0.045). The access site was changed most frequently in the procedures initiated from the RA (p < 0.04). Overall puncture site-related complications, especially local hematomas, occurred most commonly in the BA group (7.1, 14.1, and 24.5% for RA, FA, and BA, respectively, p = 0.01). During the index procedure, the access site was changed most frequently in procedures initiated from the RA (19.7, 8.5 and 0%, p = 0.04). The RA was indicated as an approach preferred by the patient for a hypothetical next procedure (87.9, 55.4, and 70.0% for subjects preferring the same approach out of patients who underwent a procedure by the RA, FA, and BA, respectively, p < 0.001). For the RA and FA, the prevalence of moderate or extreme access site-related problems in self-care decreased significantly (RA: p < 0.01, FA: p < 0.05) within 1 month after the index procedure (RA: 18.1, 4.2, and 1.4%; FA: 20.7, 11.1, and 9.6% periprocedurally, after 1 and 6 months, respectively). In contrast, for the BA these percentages were higher and a significant improvement (p < 0.05) was delayed until 6 months (54.6, 36.4, and 18.2% periprocedurally, after 1 and 6 months, respectively). In conclusion, compared to the BA and FA, the RA appears to be not only the safest, mainly due to the lowest risk of puncture site-related complications after coronary procedures but also represents a preferable approach from the patient's perspective. Although overall post-procedural QoL outcomes did not differ significantly according to the access site, nevertheless, the BA was associated with more frequent self-care problems whose improvement was delayed until more than one month after the index procedure.

Radial Access for Coronary Angiography Carries Fewer Complications Compared with Femoral Access: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), the benefits associated with radial access compared with the femoral access approach remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term evidence-based clinical outcome of the two approaches.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radial versus femoral access for CA and PCI. We identified 34 RCTs with 29,352 patients who underwent CA and/or PCI and compared 14,819 patients randomized for radial access with 14,533 who underwent procedures using femoral access. The follow-up period for clinical outcome was 30 days in all studies. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effect or a random-effect model, as appropriate. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for efficacy and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Compared with femoral access, the radial access was associated with significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (RR: 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61 to 0.88; p = 0.001), major bleeding (RR: 0.53; 95% CI:0.43 to 0.65; p ˂ 0.00001), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)(RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.91; p = 0.0002), and major vascular complications (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.48; p ˂ 0.00001). These results were consistent irrespective of the clinical presentation of ACS or STEMI.

CONCLUSIONS

Radial access in patients undergoing CA with or without PCI is associated with lower mortality, MACE, major bleeding and vascular complications, irrespective of clinical presentation, ACS or STEMI, compared with femoral access.

Improved Fluoroscopy and Time Efficiency with Radial Access for Diagnostic Cerebral Angiography

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Radial artery catheterization has been newly incorporated into the field of endovascular surgical neuroradiology as a safer and more efficient method for Cerebral angiography as opposed to the femoral artery approach. The objective is to understand the relationship between cerebral angiography procedure times after an operator has converted to a radial first approach.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted from January to August of 2019 to compare procedural times for femoral and radial artery approaches. This was conducted by comparing different procedural specifications, such as total procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and amount of contrast used.

RESULTS

The average age of the 434 patients in the analysis was 63.9 years with a range of 19 and 96 years. One hundred eighty-three patients (mean fluoroscopy time 7.55, 95% confidence interval 7.03-8.08) underwent successful diagnostic cerebral angiographies through the radial artery and, 251 patients through the femoral approach. The first 2 months of the radial approach saw an average fluoroscopy time of 11.23 minutes. In the last 2 months of the study, the fluoroscopy time plateaued to an average of 6.73 minutes after 55 cases. Radial artery average procedural time was reduced from 33 to 21 minutes. Angiography utilizing the femoral approach averaged 16 minutes throughout the study period.

CONCLUSION

Transradial procedural time and fluoroscopy time continued to improve until about 55 cases, but did not reach the peak efficiency of the femoral approach. Further advances in catheter technology are needed to continue to improve radial artery diagnostic cerebral angiography.

The Value of Transradial: Impact on Patient Satisfaction and Health Care Economics

This review summarizes the impact of transradial access for cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention related to patient satisfaction, patient safety, and health care costs. In studies comparing transradial versus transfemoral approach, transradial access causes less bleeding and less vascular access site complications and provides a mortality benefit in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Transradial access improves patient satisfaction related to site tolerability by reducing pain and discomfort, and facilitating early ambulation with reduced length of stay. Taken in total, the existing randomized and observational data strongly support radial access for improved safety, patient satisfaction, and significant cost savings.

The cost to perform uterine fibroid embolisation in the Australian public hospital system

INTRODUCTION

Uterine fibroids have the potential to cause morbidity, and there is a substantial cost to both the healthcare system and society. There is support for minimally invasive intervention, and uterine fibroid embolisation (UFE) is an established cost-effective option for women wishing for an alternative to surgery. There is a lack of local Australian costing data to compliment use in the public hospital system, and we offer a costing analysis of running a public hospital service.

METHODS

We reviewed the costs for 10 sequential uterine fibroid embolisation cases, by assessing the direct and indirect hospital costs.

RESULTS

The total cost of providing a uterine fibroid embolisation service using our model in a public hospital including initial outpatient assessment, procedure costs, overnight hospital ward stay and outpatient follow-up is $3995 per admission.

CONCLUSION

Using our model, the overall cost to perform this procedure is low, and lower than prior estimates for surgical alternatives. We encourage government and regulatory bodies to support UFE through guidelines and remuneration models, and encourage more public Australian interventional radiology departments to offer this service.

An Update on Radial Artery Access and Best Practices for Transradial Coronary Angiography and Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Transradial artery access for percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower bleeding and vascular complications than transfemoral artery access, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. A growing body of evidence supports adoption of transradial artery access to improve acute coronary syndrome-related outcomes, to improve healthcare quality, and to reduce cost. The purpose of this scientific statement is to propose and support a "radial-first" strategy in the United States for patients with acute coronary syndromes. This document also provides an update to previously published statements on transradial artery access technique and best practices, particularly as they relate to the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Standard versus ultrasound-guided radial and femoral access in coronary angiography and intervention (SURF): a randomised controlled trial

AIMS

This study aimed to compare outcomes in unselected patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation via transradial versus transfemoral access and standard versus ultrasound-guided arterial access.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a prospective, randomised (radial vs. femoral and standard vs. ultrasound), 2x2 factorial trial of 1,388 patients undergoing coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was a composite of ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY) major bleeding, MACE (death, stroke, myocardial infarction or urgent target lesion revascularisation) and vascular complications at 30 days. Transradial access reduced the primary outcome (RR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.17-0.81; p=0.013), mostly driven by ACUITY major bleeding (RR 0.343, 95% CI: 0.123-0.959; p=0.041) when compared with the transfemoral approach. There was no difference in the primary outcome between standard and ultrasound guidance (p=0.76). Ultrasound guidance, however, reduced mean access time (93 sec vs. 111 sec; p=0.009), attempts (1.47 vs. 1.9; p<0.0001), difficult accesses (4.5% vs. 9.2%; p=0.0007), venepuncture (4.1% vs. 9.2%; p<0.0001) and improved first-pass success (73% vs. 59.7%; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Transradial access significantly reduced the composite outcome compared to transfemoral access. Ultrasound guidance did not reduce the primary outcome compared to the standard technique, but significantly improved the efficiency and overall success rate of arterial access.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Transradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).

Prospective series of two hours supine rest after 4fr sheath-based diagnostic cerebral angiography: Outcomes, productivity and cost

There is no standard of care for catheter size or post-procedure supine time in cerebral angiography. Catheter sizes range from 4-Fr to 6-Fr with supine times ranging from two to over six hours. The objective of our study was to establish the efficacy, safety, and cost savings of two-hour supine time after 4-Fr elective cerebral angiography. A prospective, single arm study was performed on 107 patients undergoing elective cerebral angiography. All cerebral angiograms were performed with a 4-Fr sheath-based system without closure devices. Ten minutes of manual compression was applied to the femoral access site, with further compression held as clinically indicated. Patients were then monitored in a nursing unit for two hours supine and subsequently mobilized. Nursing discretion was allowed for earlier mobilization. Patients were called the next day to assess delayed hematoma and bleeding. Estimates of cost savings and productivity increases are provided. All patients ambulated in two hours or less. There were no strokes or vessel dissections. Five patients (4.7%) experienced a palpable hematoma, three patients (2.8%) experienced bleeding immediately following the procedure requiring further compression, and one patient (0.9%) experienced minor groin oozing at home. No patient required transfusion, thrombin injection, or endovascular/surgical management of a groin complication. A two-hour post-procedure supine time resulted in cost savings of $952 per angiogram and a total of $101,864. 4-Fr sheath based cerebral angiography with two-hour post-procedure supine time is safe and effective, and allows for a considerable increase in patient satisfaction, cost savings and productivity.

Contrast use in relation to the arterial access site for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIM

To compare the amount of contrast used during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via trans-radial access (TRA) vs trans-femoral access (TFA).

METHODS

Scientific databases and websites were searched for:randomizedcontrolledtrials (RCTs). Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and was summarized as the weighted mean difference (WMD) of contrast used with a 95%CI using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 13 RCTs with a total of 3165 patients. There was no difference between the two strategies in the amount of contrast used (WMD = - 0.65 mL, 95%CI: -10.94-9.46 mL; P = 0.901).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that in patients undergoing PCI, the amount of contrast volume used was not different between TRA and TFA.

Post-procedural Care in Interventional Radiology: What Every Interventional Radiologist Should Know-Part I: Standard Post-procedural Instructions and Follow-Up Care

Interventional radiology (IR) has evolved into a full-fledged clinical specialty with attendant patient care responsibilities. Success in IR now requires development of a full clinical practice, including consultations, inpatient admitting privileges, and an outpatient clinic. In addition to technical excellence and innovation, maintaining a comprehensive practice is imperative for interventional radiologists to compete successfully for patients and referral bases. A structured approach to periprocedural care, including routine follow-up and early identification and management of complications, facilitates efficient and thorough management with an emphasis on quality and patient safety.

Vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis

BACKGROUND

Vascular closure devices (VCDs) are widely used to achieve haemostasis after procedures requiring percutaneous common femoral artery (CFA) puncture. There is no consensus regarding the benefits of VCDs, including potential reduction in procedure time, length of hospital stay or time to patient ambulation. No robust evidence exists that VCDs reduce the incidence of puncture site complications compared with haemostasis achieved through extrinsic (manual or mechanical) compression.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of VCDs versus traditional methods of extrinsic compression in achieving haemostasis after retrograde and antegrade percutaneous arterial puncture of the CFA.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (April 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. References of articles retrieved by electronic searches were searched for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which people undergoing a diagnostic or interventional procedure via percutaneous CFA puncture were randomised to one type of VCD versus extrinsic compression or another type of VCD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of trials. We resolved disagreements by discussion with the third author. We performed meta-analyses when heterogeneity (I(2)) was < 90%. The primary efficacy outcomes were time to haemostasis and time to mobilisation (mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI)). The primary safety outcome was a major adverse event (mortality and vascular injury requiring repair) (odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI). Secondary outcomes included adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 52 studies (19,192 participants) in the review. We found studies comparing VCDs with extrinsic compression (sheath size ≤ 9 Fr), different VCDs with each other after endovascular (EVAR) and percutaneous EVAR procedures and VCDs with surgical closure after open exposure of the artery (sheath size ≥ 10 Fr). For primary outcomes, we assigned the quality of evidence according to GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria as low because of serious imprecision and for secondary outcomes as moderate for precision, consistency and directness.For time to haemostasis, studies comparing collagen-based VCDs and extrinsic compression were too heterogenous to be combined. However, both metal clip-based (MD -14.81 minutes, 95% CI -16.98 to -12.63 minutes; five studies; 1665 participants) and suture-based VCDs (MD -14.58 minutes, 95% CI -16.85 to -12.32 minutes; seven studies; 1664 participants) were associated with reduced time to haemostasis when compared with extrinsic compression.For time to mobilisation, studies comparing collagen-, metal clip- and suture-based devices with extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. No deaths were reported in the studies comparing collagen-based, metal clip-based or suture-based VCDs with extrinsic compression. For vascular injury requiring repair, meta-analyses demonstrated that neither collagen (OR 2.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 16.79; six studies; 5731 participants) nor metal clip-based VCDs (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.03 to 7.95; three studies; 783 participants) were more effective than extrinsic compression. No cases of vascular injury required repair in the study testing suture-based VCD with extrinsic compression.Investigators reported no differences in the incidence of infection between collagen-based (OR 2.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.22; nine studies; 7616 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.22 to 12.71; three studies; 750 participants) and extrinsic compression. No cases of infection were observed in studies testing suture-based VCD versus extrinsic compression. The incidence of groin haematoma was lower with collagen-based VCDs than with extrinsic compression (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.54; 25 studies; 10,247 participants), but no difference was evident when metal clip-based (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.34; four studies; 1523 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.02; six studies; 1350 participants) were compared with extrinsic compression. The incidence of pseudoaneurysm was lower with collagen-based devices than with extrinsic compression (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 21 studies; 9342 participants), but no difference was noted when metal clip-based (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.89; six studies; 1966 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.53; six studies; 1527 participants) were compared with extrinsic compression. For other adverse events, researchers reported no differences between collagen-based, clip-based or suture-based VCDs and extrinsic compression.Limited data were obtained when VCDs were compared with each other. Results of one study showed that metal clip-based VCDs were associated with shorter time to haemostasis (MD -2.24 minutes, 95% CI -2.54 to -1.94 minutes; 469 participants) and shorter time to mobilisation (MD -0.30 hours, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.01 hours; 469 participants) than suture-based devices. Few studies measured (major) adverse events, and those that did found no cases or no differences between VCDs.Percutaneous EVAR procedures revealed no differences in time to haemostasis (MD -3.20 minutes, 95% CI -10.23 to 3.83 minutes; one study; 101 participants), time to mobilisation (MD 1.00 hours, 95% CI -2.20 to 4.20 hours; one study; 101 participants) or major adverse events between PerClose and ProGlide. When compared with sutures after open exposure, VCD was associated with shorter time to haemostasis (MD -11.58 minutes, 95% CI -18.85 to -4.31 minutes; one study; 151 participants) but no difference in time to mobilisation (MD -2.50 hours, 95% CI -7.21 to 2.21 hours; one study; 151 participants) or incidence of major adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For time to haemostasis, studies comparing collagen-based VCDs and extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. However, both metal clip-based and suture-based VCDs were associated with reduced time to haemostasis when compared with extrinsic compression. For time to mobilisation, studies comparing VCDs with extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. No difference was demonstrated in the incidence of vascular injury or mortality when VCDs were compared with extrinsic compression. No difference was demonstrated in the efficacy or safety of VCDs with different mechanisms of action. Further work is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of devices currently in use and to compare these with one other and extrinsic compression with respect to clearly defined outcome measures.

Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transradial access for cardiac catheterisation results in lower bleeding and vascular complications than the traditional transfemoral access route. However, the increased radiation exposure potentially associated with transradial access is a possible drawback of this method. Whether transradial access is associated with a clinically significant increase in radiation exposure that outweighs its benefits is unclear. Our aim was therefore to compare radiation exposure between transradial access and transfemoral access for diagnostic coronary angiograms and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the scientific literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases with relevant terms, and cross-referencing relevant articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared radiation parameters in relation to access site, published from Jan 1, 1989, to June 3, 2014. Three investigators independently sorted the potentially relevant studies, and two others extracted data. We focused on the primary radiation outcomes of fluoroscopy time and kerma-area product, and used meta-regression to assess the changes over time. Secondary outcomes were operator radiation exposure and procedural time. We used both fixed-effects and random-effects models with inverse variance weighting for the main analyses, and we did confirmatory analyses for observational studies.

FINDINGS

Of 1252 records identified, we obtained data from 24 published RCTs for 19 328 patients. Our primary analyses showed that transradial access was associated with a small but significant increase in fluoroscopy time for diagnostic coronary angiograms (weighted mean difference [WMD], fixed effect: 1·04 min, 95% CI 0·84-1·24; p<0·0001) and PCI (1·15 min, 95% CI 0·96-1·33; p<0·0001), compared with transfemoral access. Transradial access was also associated with higher kerma-area product for diagnostic coronary angiograms (WMD, fixed effect: 1·72 Gy·cm(2), 95% CI -0·10 to 3·55; p=0·06), and significantly higher kerma-area product for PCI (0·55 Gy·cm(2), 95% CI 0·08-1·02; p=0·02). Mean operator radiation doses for PCI with basic protection were 107 μSv (SD 110) with transradial access and 74 μSv (68) with transfemoral access; with supplementary protection, the doses decreased to 21 μSv (17) with transradial access and 46 μSv (9) with transfemoral. Meta-regression analysis showed that the overall difference in fluoroscopy time between the two procedures has decreased significantly by 75% over the past 20 years from 2 min in 1996 to about 30 s in 2014 (p<0·0001). In observational studies, differences and effect sizes remained consistent with RCTs.

INTERPRETATION

Transradial access was associated with a small but significant increase in radiation exposure in both diagnostic and interventional procedures compared with transfemoral access. Since differences in radiation exposure narrow over time, the clinical significance of this small increase is uncertain and is unlikely to outweigh the clinical benefits of transradial access.

FUNDING

None.

Incidence, predictors, and treatment options of critical limb ischaemia after use of collagen plug-based vascular closure devices

AIMS

Limited data are available on the frequency and predictors of vascular closure device (VCD) failure with subsequent vascular complications. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, clinical characteristics, and treatment options in patients with critical limb ischaemia (CLI) after use of a collagen plug-based VCD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A high-volume, single-centre prospectively maintained database was retrospectively interrogated, and cases of collagen plug-based VCD-related CLI were identified between June 2006 and December 2013. CLI was defined as acute onset of rest pain after VCD application requiring endovascular or surgical treatment. Among 13,595 coronary procedures, 43 patients (0.3%) were identified with an Angio-Seal-related CLI. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, peripheral artery disease and renal insufficiency were identified as independent predictors for CLI after Angio-Seal application. Treatment was performed in 27 patients (63%) by surgery and in 16 patients (37%) with endovascular angioplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

CLI after use of a collagen plug-based VCD is rare. Peripheral artery disease was identified as an independent predictor of CLI. Interventional cardiologists should be aware of potentially high-risk patients and complications after use of a VCD to provide prompt and adequate therapy.

Early decision-analytic modeling - a case study on vascular closure devices

Background

As economic considerations become more important in healthcare reimbursement, decisions about the further development of medical innovations need to take into account not only medical need and potential clinical effectiveness, but also cost-effectiveness. Already early in the innovation process economic evaluations can support decisions on development in specific indications or patient groups by anticipating future reimbursement and implementation decisions. One potential concept for early assessment is value-based pricing.

Methods

The objective is to assess the feasibility of value-based pricing and product design for a hypothetical vascular closure device in the pre-clinical stage which aims at decreasing bleeding events. A deterministic decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of established vascular closure devices from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance system. To identify early benchmarks for pricing and product design, three strategies of determining the product’s value are explored: 1) savings from complications avoided by the new device; 2) valuation of the avoided complications based on an assumed willingness-to-pay-threshold (the efficiency frontier approach); 3) value associated with modifying the care pathways within which the device would be applied.

Results

Use of established vascular closure devices is dominated by manual compression. The hypothetical vascular closure device reduces overall complication rates at higher costs than manual compression. Maximum cost savings of only about €4 per catheterization could be realized by applying the hypothetical device. Extrapolation of an efficiency frontier is only possible for one subgroup where vascular closure devices are not a dominated strategy. Modifying care in terms of same-day discharge of patients treated with vascular closure devices could result in cost savings of €400-600 per catheterization.

Conclusions

It was partially feasible to calculate value-based prices for the novel closure device which can be used to inform product design. However, modifying the care pathway may generate much more value from the payers’ perspective than modifying the device per se. Manufacturers should thus explore the feasibility of combining reimbursement of their product with arrangements that make same-day discharge attractive also for hospitals. Due to the early nature of the product, the results are afflicted with substantial uncertainty.

Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials on the Safety of Vascular Closure Devices for Femoral Arterial Puncture Site Haemostasis

The safety of vascular closure devices (VCDs) is still debated. The emergence of more related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and newer VCDs makes it necessary to further evaluate the safety of VCDs. Relevant RCTs were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases updated in December 2014. Traditional and network meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the rate of combined adverse vascular events (CAVEs) and haematomas by calculating the risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Forty RCTs including 16868 patients were included. Traditional meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the rate of CAVEs between all the VCDs and manual compression (MC). Subgroup analysis showed that FemoSeal and VCDs reported after the year 2005 reduced CAVEs. Moreover, the use of VCDs reduced the risk of haematomas compared with MC. Network meta-analysis showed that AngioSeal, which might be the best VCD among all the included VCDs, was associated with reduced rates of both CAVE and haematomas compared with MC. In conclusion, the use of VCDs is associated with a decreased risk of haematomas, and FemoSeal and AngioSeal appears to be better than MC for reducing the rate of CAVEs.

Quality of life in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention--radial versus femoral access (from the OCEAN RACE Trial)

Numerous studies have compared transradial (TR) versus transfemoral (TF) access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. These studies have focused on clinical efficacy and safety; yet little is known about the effect of the vessel access on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In the present study, patients were randomly assigned to TR (n = 52) or TF (n = 51) access groups. Generic (EQ-5D-3L) and cardiac-specific (Quality of Life Index and MacNew) tools were used to assess HRQoL before PCI and 2 hours and 4 days after PCI. Baseline HRQoL was comparable in both groups and improved after PCI. The mean ± SD EQ-5D-3L health utility score 2 hours after PCI was 0.46 ± 0.291 and was higher in the TR group (TR: 0.60 ± 0.299 versus TF: 0.32 ± 0.283, p <0.001). Patients in the TR group reported fewer problems with mobility (TR: 71.7% vs TF: 94.4%, p <0.01) and self-care (TR: 62.5% vs TF: 97.2%, p <0.001). At day 4, fewer patients reported problems with anxiety and/or depression in the TR group than in the TF group (TR: 42.9% vs TF: 75.0%, p <0.001); no differences between groups in other measures were observed (Quality of Life Index and MacNew). The N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels were inversely correlated with EQ-5D-3L visual analog scale (r = -0.348, p <0.05) and EQ-5D-3L health utility score (r = -0.322, p <0.05). There was a correlation between in-hospital mortality and 2 MacNew domains: physical (r = -0.329, p <0.05) and emotional (r = -0.374, p <0.01). In conclusion, radial access should be the preferred approach in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI when considering HRQoL. Radial access is associated with fewer problems with mobility and self-care and better psychological outcome after PCI.

Safety and feasibility of a novel vascular closure device in neurointerventional procedures

This retrospective study evaluated the safety and feasibility of a new arterial femoral access closure device in neurointerventional procedures. The study includes all consecutive adult patients who underwent femoral arteriotomy closure with the MynxGrip™ closure device after Neurointerventional procedures performed between June and December 2012. All patients had a follow-up color Doppler ultrasound (US) within 48 hours after the procedure, which was independently interpreted by two experienced radiologists to evaluate for access site complications. Device success/failure, sheath size, ambulation time, and periprocedural complications were recorded. Fifty-five closure devices were deployed in 53 patients. There were 23 (43%) males and 30 (57%) females; age ranged from 22 to 84 years (mean: 52.1 years). Thirty of the 55 procedures (55%) were therapeutic and 25 were diagnostic interventions (45%). Sheath sizes used were 5F in 35 procedures (64 %) and 6F in 20 procedures (36%). The right femoral artery was accessed in 51 procedures (93 %) and the left in four procedures (7%). There was only one (1.8 %) minor periprocedural complication (small hematoma). Hemostasis was successful in 51 of the 55 procedures (93 %) with subsequent early ambulation. No device-induced complications associated with serious clinical sequelae were reported. In our small series, the MynxGrip™ femoral access closure device provided a safe and feasible way of closing the femoral artery puncture site after neurointerventional procedures with low minor complication rates and no major complications. Further large prospective randomized trials are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of the device.

Consensus document on the radial approach in percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: position paper by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care** and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology

Radial access use has been growing steadily but, despite encouraging results, still varies greatly among operators, hospitals, countries and continents. Twenty years from its introduction, it was felt that the time had come to develop a common evidence-based view on the technical, clinical and organisational implications of using the radial approach for coronary angiography and interventions. The European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) has, therefore, appointed a core group of European and non-European experts, including pioneers of radial angioplasty and operators with different practices in vascular access supported by experts nominated by the Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Their goal was to define the role of the radial approach in modern interventional practice and give advice on technique, training needs, and optimal clinical indications.

Managing Risk of Complications at Femoral Vascular Access Sites in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome or non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction requires the use of potent oral and intravenous anti-platelet and antithrombin medications. Although these potent antithrombotic agents and regimens may increase the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention, they are also generally associated with an increased risk of vascular access complications such as hematoma, retroperitoneal hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, arterial occlusion, and arteriovenous fistula, which in turn are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and costs. Risk factors predisposing patients to these complications are both modifiable (procedure technique, medications, hemostasis method) and nonmodifiable (sex, age, body mass index, blood pressure, renal function). Patients’ risks can be reduced by nurses who are knowledgeable about these risk factors and identify complications before they become problematic.

Systematic review and cost-benefit analysis of radial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention

BACKGROUND

Radial artery access for coronary angiography and interventions has been promoted for reducing hemostasis time and vascular complications compared with femoral access, yet it can take longer to perform and is not always successful, leading to concerns about its cost. We report a cost-benefit analysis of radial catheterization based on results from a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The systematic review added 5 additional randomized controlled trials to a prior review, for a total of 14 studies. Meta-analyses, following Cochrane procedures, suggested that radial catheterization significantly increased catheterization failure (OR, 4.92; 95% CI, 2.69-8.98), but reduced major complications (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.24-0.42), major bleeding (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57), and hematoma (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.48) compared with femoral catheterization. It added approximately 1.4 minutes to procedure time (95% CI, -0.22 to 2.97) and reduced hemostasis time by approximately 13 minutes (95% CI, -2.30 to -23.90). There were no differences in procedure success rates or major adverse cardiovascular events. A stochastic simulation model of per-case costs took into account procedure and hemostasis time, costs of repeating the catheterization at the alternate site if the first catheterization failed, and the inpatient hospital costs associated with complications from the procedure. Using base-case estimates based on our meta-analysis results, we found the radial approach cost $275 (95% CI, -$374 to -$183) less per patient from the hospital perspective. Radial catheterization was favored over femoral catheterization under all conditions tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Radial catheterization was favored over femoral catheterization in our cost-benefit analysis.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials on the efficacy of vascular closure devices after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty

BACKGROUND

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vascular closure devices (VCDs).

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 31 prospective, randomized studies including 7,528 patients who were randomized to VCDs or manual/mechanical compression after diagnostic angiography and/or endovascular procedures. Most of these studies have excluded patients at high risk of puncture site complications. Meta-analysis showed similar results in the study groups in terms of groin hematoma, bleeding, pseudoaneurysm, and blood transfusion. Lower limb ischemia and other arterial ischemic complications (0.3% vs 0%, P = .07) as well as need of surgery for vascular complications (0.7% vs 0.4%, P = .10) were somewhat more frequent with arterial puncture closure devices. The incidence of groin infection was significantly more frequent with VCDs (0.6% vs 0.2%, P = .02). The use of VCD was uniformly associated with a significantly shorter time to hemostasis. Such differences where more evident in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas these methods were associated with similar rates of adverse events among patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of VCDs is associated with a significantly shorter time to hemostasis and thus may shorten recovery. However, the use of VCDs is associated with a somewhat increased risk of infection, lower limb ischemia/arterial stenosis/device entrapment in the artery, and need of vascular surgery for arterial complications. Further studies are needed to get more conclusive results, particularly in patients at high risk of femoral puncture-related complications.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Ambulation 1 hour after diagnostic cardiac catheterization: a prospective study of 1009 procedures

OBJECTIVE

To study the safety of a protocol that allows ambulation 1 hour after diagnostic cardiac catheterization with a transfemoral approach using a 5F catheter system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1005 consecutive patients (1009 procedures) undergoing outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization with a transfemoral approach using a 5F catheter system at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn, were included in this study from January 1, 2004, to August 31, 2005. All patients underwent standard manual compression to achieve hemostasis and were ambulated after 1 hour of bed rest.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 64.5 years, and 62% were male. Minor vascular complications occurred in 33 procedures (3.3%), Including 14 hematomas (1.4%) less than 4 cm and 19 cases of rebleeding (1.9%) that required repeated manual compression. Only 1 patient (0.1%) had a hematoma greater than 4 cm. No patient had a major complication, such as surgical repair, red blood cell transfusion, retroperitoneal bleeding, formation of an arteriovenous fistula or pseudoaneurysm, arterial occlusion, or an infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulation 1 hour after diagnostic cardiac catheterization with a transfemoral approach using a 5F catheter system is safe and associated with low rates of vascular complications. This strategy may improve patient comfort, reduce resource utilization, and be preferable to use of vascular closure devices.

[The vascular network: a capital to preserve for the future]

These guidelines were constructed by the commission of dialysis of the Society of nephrology regarding the venous network and arteries preservation, at the intention of every specialist concerned by vascular access problems.

Complications of diagnostic cardiac catheterisation: results from a confidential inquiry into cardiac catheter complications

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the frequency and nature of complications in patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterisation and to assess time trends in complications since the introduction of a voluntary cooperative audit.

METHODS

Cardiac centres undertaking diagnostic cardiac catheterisation in England and Wales during the 10 years 1990-9 were invited to join the study. Each participating centre reported numbers of patients catheterised each month and details of complications and deaths as they occurred. Complication rates were calculated for the main diagnostic procedures and for each participating hospital and time trends in complications were examined.

RESULTS

41 cardiac centres contributed. 211 645 diagnostic procedures in adults and 7582 paediatric procedures were registered. The majority (87%) of diagnostic catheter studies in adults were left heart studies with coronary arteriography. The overall complication rate for adult procedures was 7.4/1000, with mortality at 0.7/1000; for paediatric procedures the complication rate was similar but mortality rather higher. Complication rates varied between centres but there was little association with caseload. Time trends across the decade showed both complication and mortality decreasing; from 9.5 to 5.8/1000 and from 1.4 to 0.4/1000, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates of diagnostic catheterisation are low but neither negligible nor irreducible. While voluntary audit of cardiac catheter complications is useful and inexpensive, there is a clear need to establish a formal reporting system in all cardiac catheter laboratories, with clear definitions of reportable complications.

Radial versus femoral access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention with adjunct glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in acute myocardial infarction--the RADIAL-AMI pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results in fewer vascular complications, earlier ambulation, and improved patient comfort. Limited data exist for radial access in acute myocardial infarction, where reperfusion must occur quickly.

METHODS

In a multicenter pilot trial, 50 patients with myocardial infarction requiring either primary or rescue PCI were randomized to radial or femoral access. All operators had previously performed at least 100 transradial cases. Procedure times were prospectively recorded.

RESULTS

Thrombolysis was used in 66% of the cases and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in 94%. Crossover from radial to femoral access was required in one case. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 47 patients, with stenting in 45. One procedural failure occurred with radial access because of inability to cross the occlusion. The time from local anesthesia to first balloon inflation was 32 (25th percentile 26, 75th percentile 38) minutes for radial access and 26 (22, 33) minutes for femoral access (P = .04). There were no significant differences in contrast use or fluoroscopy time. No patient experienced major bleeding or required transfusion. Doppler studies demonstrated 2 asymptomatic radial occlusions and 2 pseudoaneurysms (1 from each group). One patient in the femoral group died 2 days after PCI. At 30 days, there were no strokes or reinfarctions and no patient required bypass surgery or repeat PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary and rescue PCI can be performed with high success rates using either radial or femoral access. Although radial access was associated with a longer time to first balloon inflation, the difference was small and likely not clinically significant. In patients without shock, major bleeding and vascular complications are infrequent with either access site despite the high use of thrombolysis and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.