Comparison of procedural times, success rates, and safety between left versus right radial arterial access in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Effectiveness and Safety of Left Distal Transradial Access in Coronary Procedures in the Caribbean

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study investigated the effectiveness and safety of left distal transradial access (LDTRA) in patients with cardiovascular disease in Trinidad undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHOD

Procedural parameters, including technical success and safety outcomes such as vascular complications and radial artery occlusion (RAO), were assessed in 111 consecutive patients undergoing CAG or PCI from January 2023 to June 2023 at the Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex, Trinidad and Tobago. Eighty-eight patients underwent LDTRA, while 23 received left transradial access (LTRA).

RESULTS

There was no difference in procedural success with LDTRA compared to LTRA, 90.9% vs. 100%, p-value 0.202, non-significant (ns). LDTRA was associated with shorter fluoroscopy times (8.4 ± 6.8 minutes vs. 12.4 ± 7.7 minutes, p-value = 0.02), procedural duration (26.7 ± 18 minutes vs. 35.8 ± 20 minutes, p-value = 0.04), and hemostasis time (142 ± 41 minutes vs. 186 ± 44 minutes, p-value < 0.05). There were no significant differences in procedural-related complications (8% for LDTRA vs. 4.3% for LTRA, p-value = 0.476, ns). There were no reported cases of RAO. In the subgroup of patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the fluoroscopy and procedure times were similar for both access sites; however, LDTRA was associated with a shorter hemostasis time (128 ± 30 minutes vs. 194 ± 39 minutes, p-value = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

LDTRA is effective and safe for coronary procedures and is associated with a shorter hemostasis time. This study may prove clinically pertinent in a limited-resource Caribbean setting.

Predictors of radial to femoral artery crossover during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In contrast to traditional femoral artery access, radial artery access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with reduced mortality and bleeding but has higher crossover rates. Therefore, factors associated with crossover warrant exploration as crossover due to technical challenges associated with the radial route may be mitigated.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify predictors of radial access failure or crossover to femoral access in PPCI.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Systematic Reviews Checklist with searches conducted in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases. Inclusion criteria for this study included patients with STEMI; PPCI; and primary research identifying predictors of radial access failures and/or crossovers, published in English, and after 2010. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020167122). Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 26.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) and RevMan version 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) with meta-analysis conducted by using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects method. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was utilised for quality and risk of bias assessment, with EndNote software used for citations.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 12,621 patients. Risk of bias of these studies was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. The mean age was 61.2 ± 12.0 years, and 75.3% were male. Crossover from transradial to transfemoral artery occurred in 529 (4.2%) patients. Reasons for radial access failure included failed puncture (35.3%), peripheral occlusion or tortuosity (24.5%), and radial artery spasm (20.1%). Predictors of crossover included older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-2.65; p < 0.001), female sex (OR, 2.10; 95% Cl, 1.58-2.80; p < 0.001), weight ≤65 kg (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.95-4.46; p < 0.001), and previous percutaneous coronary intervention (OR, 2.80; 95% Cl, 1.74-4.52; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Older age, female sex, weight ≤65 kg, and previous percutaneous coronary intervention were predictors of crossover or failure from the radial to femoral artery. As these predictors are known to be associated with high bleeding and mortality, they should not preclude attempting a radial-first approach in all patients with STEMI. However, as these results were unadjusted, this study warrants further research to thoroughly investigate predictors of radial artery crossover.

Association between the Angle of the Left Subclavian Artery and Procedural Time for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background

The effect of left subclavian artery tortuosity during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unclear.

Methods

Of 245 ACS patients (from November 2019 and May 2021), 79 who underwent PCI via a left radial approach (LRA) were included. We measured the angle of the left subclavian artery in the coronal view on CT imaging as an indicator of the tortuosity and investigated the association between that angle and the clinical variables and procedural time.

Results

Patients with a left subclavian artery angle of a median of <70 degrees (severe tortuosity) were older (75.4 ± 11.7 vs. 62.9 ± 12.3 years, P < 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of female sex (42.1% vs. 14.6%, P=0.007), hypertension (94.7% vs. 75.6%, P=0.02), and subclavian artery calcification (73.7% vs. 34.2%, P < 0.001) than those with that ≥70 degrees. The left subclavian artery angle correlated negatively with the sheath cannulation to the first balloon time (ρ = -0.51, P < 0.001) and total procedural time (ρ = -0.32, P=0.004). A multiple linear regression analysis revealed that the natural log transformation of the sheath insertion to first balloon time was associated with a subclavian artery angle of <70 degrees (β = 0.45, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our study showed that lower left subclavian artery angles as a marker of the tortuosity via the LRA were strongly associated with a longer sheath insertion to balloon time and subsequent entire procedure time during the PCI.

Initial Experience with Left Transradial Neurointerventions for Cerebral Aneurysms Using the 6-French Simmons Guiding Sheath

OBJECTIVE

The use of a transradial approach utilizing a Simmons-shaped catheter for neurointervention has been steadily increasing. Although the right radial artery is commonly used, in interventional cardiology, the left transradial approach offers clear clinical benefits for right-handed patients. To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have examined intracranial aneurysm embolization with the routine use of the left transradial approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of left transradial intracranial aneurysm embolization.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of a prospective database of consecutive patients who had undergone left transradial intracranial aneurysm coiling using a 6-French Simmons guiding sheath between January and August 2021. The following outcome variables were then analyzed: whether the catheterization was successful, the angiographical results, and the presence of any procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

In total, 25 patients underwent left transradial coiling for 15 anterior and 10 posterior circulation aneurysms. The Simmons guiding sheath could be successfully shaped and cannulated into the targeted vessel in all patients. All aneurysms were completely embolized without any complications. Immediate postoperative angiograms showed Raymond 1 in 10 aneurysms (40.0%), Raymond 2 in 12 (48.0%), and Raymond 3a in 3 (12.0%). None of the patients required crossover to the right radial or femoral arteries, and no radial artery spasms or occlusions were observed.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that the left transradial approach for intracranial aneurysm coiling is not only safe, effective, and technically feasible, but also provides improved comfort to right-handed patients.

Left Transradial Neurointerventions Using the 6-French Simmons Guiding Sheath: Initial Experiences with the Interchange Technique

BACKGROUND

The transradial approach using a Simmons-shaped catheter has been increasingly used for diagnostic cerebral angiography and neurointervention. In the transradial approach for neurointervention, the right radial artery is mainly used. However, in interventional cardiology, there are apparent clinical benefits with the left transradial approach for right-handed patients. To our knowledge, no studies have reported on neurointervention with the routine use of the left transradial approach. We therefore devised a novel technique for cases with an unachievable form of the Simmons shape using the standard technique, which we named the "interchange technique." The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of the left transradial neurointervention.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of our prospective database of consecutive patients who underwent a left transradial neurointervention, using a 6-French Simmons guiding sheath, performed from January through April 2021. The outcome variables studied were successful catheterization and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients underwent a left transradial neurointervention including cerebral aneurysm coiling, carotid artery stenting, and meningioma embolization. The Simmons shape could not be formed with the standard technique for 3 patients, for whom we successfully formed the Simmons shape with our new interchange technique. The procedure was completely achieved in all 21 patients. No patients required crossover to the right radial or femoral arteries, and there were no radial artery spasms or occlusions or any procedural complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The left transradial approach for neurointervention is a technically feasible, safe, and effective alternative while providing more comfort to right-handed patients.

Transradial Interventions at the Forefront of Innovation

Interventional cardiology has witnessed tremendous changes over the years from a mainly diagnostic approach in an elective population to therapeutic strategies in critically ill patients. Currently, we can treat a broad spectrum of coronary artery, peripheral artery, and structural heart diseases with less invasive, percutaneous approaches that we did not anticipate to be possible just a decade ago. It is certain that the interventional techniques will see further development and we will be able to treat by percutaneous methods more conditions previously thought beyond our reach. Regardless of the advances in catheter-based diagnostic and therapeutic techniques, one thing remains constant. They all require vascular access. And, vascular access is the first technical part of any percutaneous cardiovascular procedure that can determine its overall success. High-quality data together with the availability of training courses for interventional cardiologists and fellows-in-training ensure systematic use of the transradial approach (TRA) which has demonstrated a considerable benefit compared to transfemoral approach both in chronic and acute coronary syndromes. Constant improvement of TRA techniques will further facilitate transradial endovascular and structural interventions, and the growing use for high-risk and complex percutaneous coronary interventions. A continuously growing body of evidence is focused on surpassing current TRA limitations (specifically radial artery occlusion) and expanding alternative vascular accesses such as transulnar approach or distal TRA ("snuff-box" technique). Should this downsizing trend continue, we could see a further paradigm shift toward using the snuff-box technique.

Accessing the Wrist: From Data to Tips and Tricks

Over the past 2 decades, radial artery access has increasingly become the standard approach for coronary angiography and intervention. Compared with femoral arteries, transradial access is associated with better hemostasis. Transradial access has increased patient preference, facilitates early ambulation, and is cost-effective. An important limitation of transradial access is access site failure, and it carries a crossover rate of 3% to 7% in randomized prospective trials comparing radial with femoral artery access among experienced operators. Crossover rates for failed primary radial artery access can be reduced with ultrasonography guidance and increased familiarity with alternative access sites in the wrist.

Left transradial access for cerebral angiography

Introduction

Transradial access is increasingly used among neurointerventionalists as an alternative to the transfemoral route. Currently available data, building on the interventional cardiology experience, primarily focus on right radial access. However, there are clinical scenarios when left-sided access may be indicated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of left transradial access to cerebral angiography across three institutions.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent cerebral angiography accessed via the left radial artery at three institutions between January 2018 and July 2019. The outcome variables studied were successful catheterization, vascular complications, and fluoroscopic time.

Results

Nineteen patients underwent a total of 25 cerebral angiograms via left transradial access for cerebral aneurysms (n=15), basilar occlusion (n=1), carotid stenosis (n=1), arteriovenous malformation (n=1), and cervical neurofibroma (n=1). There were 12 diagnostic angiograms and 13 interventional angiograms. The left transradial approach was chosen due to left vertebrobasilar pathology (n=22), right subclavian stenosis (n=2), and previous right arm amputation (n=1). There was one instance of radial artery spasm, which resolved after catheter removal, and one conversion to transfemoral access in an interventional case due to lack of distal catheter support. There were no procedural complications.

Conclusions

Left transradial access in diagnostic and interventional cerebral angiography is a technically feasible, safe, and an effective alternative when indicated, and may be preferable for situations in which pathology locations or anatomic limitations preclude right-sided radial access.

Radiation Exposure of the Operator During Coronary Interventions (from the RADIO Study)

We sought to compare operator radiation exposure during procedures using right femoral access (RFA), right radial access (RRA), and left radial access (LRA) during coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Because of an increased incidence of long-term malignancy in interventional cardiologists, operator radiation exposure is of rising concern. This prospective study included all consecutive patients who underwent elective or emergency CA ± PCI from September 2014 to March 2015. The primary end point was operator radiation exposure, quantified as the ratio of operator cumulative dose (CD) and patient radiation reported as dose-area product (DAP) (CD/DAP). Secondary end points included CD, DAP, and fluoroscopy time (FT). Overall 830 procedures (457 CA [55%] and 373 PCI [45%]) were performed, 455 (55%) through RFA, 272 (33%) through RRA, and 103 (12%) through LRA. The CD/DAP was lower in RFA (0.09 μSv/Gycm(2) [0.02 to 0.20]) compared with RRA (0.47 μSv/Gycm(2) [0.25 to 0.75], p <0.001). The LRA showed lower CD/DAP compared with RRA (p <0.001). CD was significantly lower in RFA (3 μSv [1 to 7]) compared with RRA (12 μSv [6 to 29], p <0.001). The LRA showed lower CD compared with RRA (p <0.001). There were no significant differences in DAP among the 3 access sites. FT was similar for the 3 groups (RFA 7 ± 7, RRA 5 ± 5, LRA 6 ± 5 minutes, RFA vs RRA: p = 1, RFA vs LRA: p = 0.16, RRA vs LRA: p = 0.52). In conclusion, the use of RFA during CA ± PCI is associated with significantly lower operator radiation exposure compared with RRA. LRA is associated with significantly lower operator radiation exposure compared with RRA.

Comparison of Safety and Effectiveness Between Right Versus Left Radial Arterial Access in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Transradial approach (TRA) is now considered the standard of care in many centres for elective and primary percutaneous intervention (PCI). The use of the radial approach in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients has been associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events. However, it is still unclear if the side of radial access (right vs. left) has impact on safety and effectiveness of TRA in primary PCI. So this study was conducted to compare the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of right radial access (RRA) vs. left radial access (LRA) in the setting of primary PCI.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the data of 400 consecutive patients presenting to our institution with STEMI for whom primary PCIs were performed via RRA and LRA.

RESULTS

Mean age of the whole studied population was 57±12.8 years, with male predominance (77.2%). There were 202 cases in the RRA group and 198 in the LRA group, with no significant difference in demographics and clinical characteristics for patients included in both groups. There was no significant difference in procedure success rate (97.5% for RRA vs. 98.4% for LRA; P=0.77). In addition, no significant difference between both approaches was observed in the contrast volume, number of catheters, fluoroscopy time (FT), needle-to-balloon time, post-procedure vascular complications, in hospital reinfarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or death.

CONCLUSION

Right radial access and LRA are equally safe and effective in the setting of primary PCI. Both approaches have a high success rate and comparable needle-to-balloon time.

Comparison of transradial coronary procedures via right radial versus left radial artery approach: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Coronary angiography and angioplasty via transradial approach is shown to be associated with significant reduction in access site complications. Due to a lack of sufficient data, the use of the right or left radial approach is still operator-dependent. We performed a meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies to compare right versus left radial artery approach for coronary procedures.

METHODS

We found 12 randomized studies meeting the predetermined inclusion criteria. A total of 6,450 patients were included in the meta-analysis of which 3,217 patients underwent coronary procedures via right radial approach and 3,233 patients via left radial approach. The primary endpoint was the comparison of fluoroscopy time, procedure time, contrast use and cross-over rates between two radial approaches.

RESULTS

Pooled analysis of the included studies showed a similar rate of cross-over events (4.2% for right radial approach vs. 4.1% for left radial approach, odds ratio (OR)=1.08, P = 0.68), and similar total procedure times (18.8 ± 10.3 min vs. 18.1 ± 10.0 min, standard difference (SD) of the mean = 0.09, P = 0.162) between the two radial approaches. However, the right radial approach was found to be associated with minimally longer fluoroscopy times (5.8 ± 4.4 min vs. 5.3 ± 4.2 min, SD of the mean = 0.157, P < 0.001) and greater contrast use (84 ± 35 mL vs. 82 ± 34 mL, SD of the mean = 0.082, P = 0.003). Access site complications and the incidence of stroke were similar between two radial approaches.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests a small but statistically significant difference in terms of contrast use and fluoroscopy time in favor of coronary procedures performed via left radial approach in comparison to right radial approach without any significant difference in access site or other procedural complications between the two radial approaches. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Revealing the impact of local access-site complications and upper extremity dysfunction post transradial percutaneous coronary procedures

Objectives

Little is known about local access-site complications and upper extremity dysfunction after transradial percutaneous coronary procedures (TR-PCP). This systematic review study aimed to summarise the current knowledge on the incidences of access-site complications and upper extremity dysfunction after TR-PCP.

Methods

Two independent, trained investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for eligible studies published before 1 January 2015. Also, they hand-searched the conference proceedings of the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, and the Trans-catheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics. Inclusion criteria were cohort studies and clinical trials discussing the incidence of access-site complications and upper extremity function after transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TR-PCI) and/or transradial coronary angiography (TR-CAG) as endpoints.

Results

176 articles described access-site complications. The incidence is up to 9.6 %. Fourteen articles described upper extremity dysfunction, with an incidence of up to 1.7 %. Upper extremity dysfunction was rarely investigated, hardly ever as primary endpoint, and if investigated not thoroughly enough.

Conclusion

Upper extremity dysfunction in TR-PCP has never been properly investigated and is therefore underestimated. Further studies are needed to investigate the magnitude, prevention and best treatment of upper extremity dysfunction. Optimising TR-PCP might be achieved by using slender techniques, detection of upper extremity dysfunction and early referral to a hand rehabilitation centre.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s12471-015-0747-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. This supplementary file contains References 51–202.

Randomized comparative study of left versus right radial approach in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence suggests that the left radial approach (LRA) is related to decreased coronary procedure duration and fewer cerebrovascular complications as compared to the right radial approach (RRA) in elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the feasibility of LRA in primary PCI has yet to be studied further. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of LRA compared with RRA for primary PCI in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 200 consecutive patients with STEMI who received primary PCI were randomized to LRA (number [n]=100) or RRA (n=100). The study endpoint was needle-to-balloon time, defined as the time from local anesthesia infiltration to the first balloon inflation. Radiation dose by measuring cumulative air kerma (CAK) and CAK dose area product, as well as fluoroscopy time and contrast volume were also investigated.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. The coronary procedural success rate was similar between both radial approaches (98% for left versus 94% for right; P=0.28). Compared with RRA, LRA had significantly shorter needle-to-balloon time (16.0±4.8 minutes versus 18.0±6.5 minutes, respectively; P=0.02). Additionally, fluoroscopy time (7.4±3.4 minutes versus 8.8±3.5 minutes, respectively; P=0.01) and CAK dose area product (51.9±30.4 Gy cm(2) versus 65.3±49.1 Gy cm(2), respectively; P=0.04) were significantly lower with LRA than with RRA.

CONCLUSION

Primary PCI can be performed via LRA with earlier blood flow restoration in the infarct-related artery and lower radiation exposure when compared with RRA; therefore, the LRA may become a feasible and attractive alternative to perform primary PCI for STEMI patients.

Rebirth of left radial artery access: could this be the 'right' radial artery?

Cardiac catheterization has several risks, notably which include bleeding, stroke and death. The transradial (TR) approach to catheterization is associated with a lower bleeding risk. The right radial approach is the default method in most laboratories and the left radial artery (LRA) serves as the bail-out approach. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of transfemoral and TR access routes. The authors envisage an increased adoption of the LRA approach, due to the anatomical superiority and ease of catheter engagement afforded by this approach. The authors discuss ways to increase operator ease for LRA in the laboratory and propose a novel way to improve LRA work-flow.