Saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention via radial artery access: safe and effective with reduced hospital length of stay

Radial versus femoral access in patients with coronary artery bypass surgery: Frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal access site for cardiac catheterization in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) continues to be debated.

METHODS

We performed a random effects frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of 4 randomized trials and 18 observational studies, including 60,192 patients with prior CABG (27,236 in the radial group; 32,956 in the femoral group) that underwent cardiac catheterization. Outcomes included (1) access-site complications, (2) crossover to a different vascular access, (3) procedure time, and (4) contrast volume. Mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for binary outcomes.

RESULTS

Among randomized trials, crossover (OR: 7.63; 95% CI: 2.04, 28.51; p = 0.003) was higher in the radial group, while access site complications (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.34, 2.87; p = 0.94) and contrast volume (MD: 15.08; 95% CI: -10.19, 40.35; p = 0.24) were similar. Among observational studies, crossover rates were higher (OR: 5.09; 95% CI: 2.43, 10.65; p < 0.001), while access site complication rates (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.89; p = 0.02) and contrast volume (MD: -7.52; 95% CI: -13.14, -1.90 ml; p = 0.009) were lower in the radial group. Bayesian analysis suggested that the odds of a difference existing between radial and femoral are small for all endpoints except crossover to another access site.

CONCLUSION

In a frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of patients with prior CABG undergoing coronary catheterization, radial access was associated with lower incidence of vascular access complications and lower contrast volume but also higher crossover rate.

Transradial artery access for percutaneous cardiovascular procedures: state of the art and future directions

The transradial access (TRA) for cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been widely adopted in the last decades since its first description in the late 40s. The transradial approach has been associated with favorable outcomes as compared with transfemoral access (TFA) in several registries and randomized clinical trials, mainly due to the lower incidence of access-site bleedings, vascular complications and improved patient comfort. This review aimed to summarize the body of evidence supporting the use of TRA, to discuss clinical implications, possible technical limitations and future directions, such as the implementation of TRA as the primary access for complex procedures and structural interventions.

Transradial and Transfemoral Approach in Patients with Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

The relationship between periprocedural complications and the type of vascular access in patients with prior history of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) is less investigated than in the overall group of patients treated with PCI. The aim of the current study was to assess the relationship between the type of vascular access and selected periprocedural complications in a group of patients with prior history of CABG and treated with PCIs. Based on a Polish nationwide registry of interventional cardiology procedures called ORPKI, the authors analyzed 536,826 patients treated with PCI between 2014 and 2018. The authors extracted 32,225 cases with prior history of CABG. Then, patients with femoral and radial access as well as right and left radial access were compared. This comparison was proceeded by propensity score matching (PSM). After PSM, a multifactorial analysis revealed that patients treated with PCI from femoral access were significantly more often related to periprocedural deaths (odds ratio [OR]: 1.79; 95%, confidence interval [CI]: 1.1–3.0, p = 0.02) and cardiac arrests (OR: 1.98; 95%, CI: 1.38–2.87, p < 0.001). After inclusion of the Killip class grade and the occurrence of cardiac arrests before PCI into the PSM, the significance remained for procedural related cardiac arrests (OR: 1.55; 95%, CI: 1.07–2.28, p = 0.022]). However, a comparison of right and left radial access showed no significant differences between procedure-related complications. It has been confirmed that there is a statistical association between femoral access (compared to radial access) and a higher rate of periprocedural cardiac arrests in patients with prior history of CABG treated with PCI.

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Approach for Coronary Angiography in Females with Prior Bypass Surgery

Background Multiple studies have shown that trans-radial access (TRA) for women undergoing coronary angiography/intervention (CA/I) has a lower risk of vascular access site complications as compared with trans-femoral access (TFA). In patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), studies also showed no significant difference between TRA and TFA in terms of contrast amount (CA), procedure time (PT), and fluoroscopy time (FT). However, those studies mainly included men. Limited information is available on the relative merits of TRA as compared with TFA for cardiac catheterization in females who previously undergone CABG. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of TRA versus TFA in women with prior CABG surgery who are undergoing CA/I in regard to CA, PT, and FT. Methods In this single-center retrospective cohort study, females with a history of CABG who underwent CA/I in the period from January 2013 to September 2016 were included. A total of 584 patients were included and divided into two groups: TRA group (49 patients) and TFA group (535 patients). The primary endpoints were CA, PT, and FT. The means for the primary outcomes were compared between the two using the independent t-score test. Results A total of 584 female patients with a history of CABG had cardiac catheterization from January 2013 to September 2016 at our center. Trans-femoral access accounted for 91.6% (n=535) of the patients while trans-radial access accounted for 8.4% (n=49) of the patients. A comparison of procedural variables between TRA and TFA revealed that there was no statistical significance in procedure time, fluoroscopy time, or the contrast volume. The access site crossover rate was 6.12% (n=3) from radial to femoral while there was a 0% rate in the femoral to radial access. Conclusion The key findings of this study suggest that in female patients with a prior history of CABG, TRA is an equally reliable and efficacious approach for both diagnostic angiography and intervention compared to TFA.

IMPACT OF PELVIC AND RAD-BOARD LEAD SHIELDS ON OPERATOR AND PATIENT RADIATION DOSE IN TRANS-RADIAL CORONARY PROCEDURES

BACKGROUND

Trans-radial approach for cardiac catheterisation procedures has long been associated with high operator and patient radiation dose. The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of pelvic and radial shields on decreasing coronary procedure radiation doses.

METHODS

A total of 418 patients randomly underwent diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac procedures with and without the pelvic and rad-board lead shields during the procedures. The operator and patient doses were then determined by means of a personal dosimeter and dose area product (DAP), respectively.

RESULTS

The shields decreased the operator radiation dose by 40% in coronary angiography (CA) and by 45% during angioplasty (PCI). These results were achieved at the cost of increased patient radiation dose.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic lead shields combined with rad-board shields are highly effective in reducing operator radiation dose in trans-radial approach, but it is only achieved at the cost of increased patient DAP.

Vascular Access Site and Outcomes in 58,870 Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With a Previous History of Coronary Bypass Surgery: Results From the British Cardiovascular Interventions Society National Database

OBJECTIVES

Using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) database, access site choice and outcomes of patients undergoing PCI with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were studied.

BACKGROUND

Given the influence of access site on outcomes, use of radial access in PCI-CABG warrants further investigation.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from 58,870 PCI-CABG procedures performed between 2005 and 2014. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of access site choice and its association with outcomes.

RESULTS

The number of PCI-CABG cases and the percentage of total PCI increased significantly during the study period. Femoral artery (FA) utilization fell from 90.8% in 2005 to 57.6% in 2014 (p < 0.001), with no differences in the rate of change of left versus right radial use. In contemporary study years (2012 to 2014), female sex, acute coronary syndrome presentation, chronic total occlusion intervention, and lower operator volume were independently associated with FA access. Length of stay was shortened in the radial cohort. Unadjusted outcomes including an access site complication (1.10% vs. 0.30%; p < 0.001), blood transfusion (0.20% vs. 0.04%; p < 0.001), major bleeding (1.30% vs. 0.40%; p < 0.001), and in-hospital death (1.10% vs. 0.60%; p = 0.001) were more likely to occur with FA access compared with radial access. After adjustment, although arterial complications, transfusion, and major bleeding remained more common with FA use, short- and longer-term mortality and major adverse cardiac event rates were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary practice, FA access remains predominant during PCI-CABG with case complexity associated with it use. FA use was associated with longer length of stay, and higher rates of vascular complications, major bleeding, and transfusion.

Radial versus femoral approach for saphenous vein grafts angiography and interventions

BACKGROUND

Coronary angiography and intervention to saphenous venous grafts (SVGs) remain challenging. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of the radial approach compared to femoral access in a large cohort of patients undergoing SVG angiography and intervention.

METHODS

Data from 1,481 patients from Canada, United States, and Spain who underwent procedures between 2010 and 2016 were collected. Patients must have undergone SVG coronary angiography and/or intervention. Demographics, procedural data, and in-hospital complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Procedures were undertaken by either the radial (n = 863, 211 intervention) or femoral (n = 618, 260 intervention) approach. The mean number of SVGs per patient was similar between groups (radial 2.3 ± 0.7 vs femoral 2.6 ± 1.1, P = .61), but the radial group required a fewer number of catheters (2.6 ± 1.7 vs 4.1 ± 1.1, P < .001). Fluoroscopy time was comparable between groups, and there was a trend toward lower contrast volume in the radial group (P = .045). Overall, the total dose of heparin was significantly higher in the radial group (P < .001); however, radial patients experienced significantly less access-site bleeding complications (P < .001). Outpatients undergoing radial SVG interventions had a higher likelihood of a same-day discharge home (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Radial access for SVG angiography and intervention is safe and feasible, without increasing fluoroscopy time. In experienced centers, radial access was associated with fewer catheters used, lower contrast volume, and lower rate of vascular access-site bleeding complications. Moreover, outpatients undergoing SVG percutaneous coronary intervention though the radial approach had a higher likelihood of a same-day discharge home.

Comparison of Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches for Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Intervention in Patients with Coronary Bypass Grafts

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention in patients with coronary artery bypass grafts in terms of volume of radiographic contrast administered during cardiac catheterization, fluoroscopy time, and total procedure time.

BACKGROUND

The transradial access has been increasingly used as an alternative to transfemoral. Several studies demonstrated that such access is associated with lower rates of vascular and bleeding complications. Although coronary artery bypass graft patients comprise a significant portion of the coronary artery disease population, this subpopulation was often excluded or underrepresented in transradial access studies.

METHODS

Single center, retrospective cohort study. In the study period, all patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery and had received cardiac catheterization at our institution were included in the study population.

RESULTS

A total of 2153 patients were included in the study. From these, 1937 were performed by femoral artery and 216 by transradial approach. Compared to the transfemoral approach, transradial access was associated with lower contrast use (136.3 ± 74.4 ml vs. 122.8 ± 59.1 ml, p = 0.035) and longer fluoroscopy time (13.9 ± 25.6 min vs. 15.9 ± 14.3 min, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic and interventional catheterization through the transradial approach in patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery was associated with less contrast amount used and longer fluoroscopy time compared to the transfemoral approach. The transradial approach was also associated with lower crossover rates and less vascular complications.

Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention via Transradial Versus Transfemoral Approach in Bypass Grafts

We compared the efficacy and safety of the transradial approach percutaneous coronary intervention (TRA-PCI) and transfemoral approach percutaneous coronary intervention (TFA-PCI) for bypass grafts lesions. Patients (n = 184) were retrospectively enrolled. Less contrast was used during the procedure in the TRA group than in the TFA group, 201.5 (45.5) mL versus 221.5 (49.1) mL, P = .004, although fluoroscopy time was longer in the TRA group, 22.5 (6.3) minutes versus 20.3 (6.1) minutes; P = .017. The incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACEs) was lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group (3.1% vs 8.8%, respectively, P = .111). The incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 and 5 bleeding (0% vs 5.5%, respectively, P = .022) was significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. For 1-year outcomes, there was no difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (7.5% vs 9.9%, respectively, P = .569). In conclusion, TRA-PCI was associated with a lower rate of in-hospital NACEs mainly attributed to lower rates of major bleeding. The TRA-PCI showed comparable feasibility and efficacy in bypass grafts as compared with TFA-PCI when carried out by experienced operators.

Ultrasonic Technology Improves Radial Artery Puncture and Cannulation in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Shock Patients

Background

This study observed the efficacy of ultrasonic technique with out-of-plane orientation and in-plane guidance in radial artery puncture and cannulation in intensive care unit (ICU) shock patients to elucidate the effect of this technique on the security of cannulation.

Material/Methods

A total of 88 ICU shock patients, randomized into a palpation (control) group and an ultrasound (experimental) group, received continuous intravenous sedation and analgesia. The palpation group patients underwent radial artery cannulation using the traditional palpation pulsation approach, and the ultrasound group patients underwent radial artery cannulation under out-of-plane orientation and in-plane guidance using an ultrasonic apparatus. Data were recorded and compared between the 2 groups.

Results

(1) The success rate of the first puncture in the ultrasound group and the palpation group was 80% and 42%, respectively (P<0.05). (2) The cannulation duration in the ultrasound group and the palpation group was 8.77±6.33 s and 28.7±26.33 s, respectively (P<0.01). (3) Incidence of hematoma and staxis around stoma in the ultrasound group was 2.5% and 5%, respectively, which was significantly lower than that in the palpation group, which was 20% and 32.5%, respectively (P<0.05). (4) Time to achieve the early goal-directed therapy in the ultrasound group and the palpation group was 306.73±39.98 min and 356.75±40.97 min, respectively (P<0.01).

Conclusions

Compared with the traditional method, radial artery cannulation with out-of-plane orientation and in-plane guidance is a quick and secure cannulation method and is appropriate for use in clinics.

Meta-Analysis of Radial Versus Femoral Artery Approach for Coronary Procedures in Patients With Previous Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Cardiac catheterization through the radial artery approach (RA) has been shown to significantly reduce access-site complications compared with the femoral artery approach (FA) in many clinical settings. However, in the subset of patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), optimal vascular access site for coronary angiography and intervention is still a matter of debate. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of available studies comparing RA with FA in patients with previous CABG. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; weighted mean differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes, whereas odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Summary statistics were calculated by random-effects model using Review Manager 5.3 software. The meta-analysis included 1 randomized and 8 nonrandomized studies, with a total of 2,763 patients. Compared with FA, RA required similar procedural time (mean difference 3.24 minutes, 95% CI -1.76 to 8.25, p = 0.20), fluoroscopy time (mean difference 0.62 minutes, 95% CI -0.83 to 2.07, p = 0.40), and contrast volume (mean difference -2.58 ml, 95% CI -18.36 to 13.20, p = 0.75) and was associated with similar rate of procedural failure (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.80, p = 0.46), higher rate of crossover to another vascular access (OR 7.0, 95% CI 2.74 to 17.87, p <0.0001), and lower risk of access-site complications (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.80, p = 0.006). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggests that in patients with previous CABG undergoing coronary procedures, RA, compared with FA, is associated with increased crossover rate but may reduce access-site complications.

A comparison of the transradial and transfemoral approaches for the angiography and intervention in patients with a history of coronary artery bypass surgery: in-hospital and 1-year follow-up results

Background:

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) through transradial approach (TRA) has shown to be safe and effective as transfemoral approach (TFA) among unselected patients. However, very few studies have compared the outcomes between TRA and TFA specifically in patients with a history of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG).

Methods:

A total of 404 post-CABG patients who had undergone angiography or PCI were included in the study. The primary endpoint was defined as angiographic success and procedure success. The secondary endpoint was defined as in-hospital net adverse clinical events (NACEs), which included all cause of death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, repeat revascularization, and major bleeding. Patients were followed-up for 1-year. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), which included death, MI, and repeat revascularization, at 1-year follow-up were also compared.

Results:

The angiographic success was reached by 97.4% in the TRA group compared with 100% in the TFA group (P = 0.02). The procedure success was achieved in 99.1% in the TRA group and 97.9% in the TFA group (P = 0.68). The incidence rates of in-hospital NACE (2.7% vs. 2.7%, P = 1.00) and 1-year MACE (11.5% vs. 12.0%, P = 0.88) were similar between TRA and TFA. Meanwhile, TRA was associated with a lower rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥2 bleeding (P = 0.02). In patients undergoing graft PCI, the procedure success was similar between TRA and TFA (100.0% vs. 98.7%, P = 1.00). The procedure time (25.0 min vs. 27.5 min, P = 0.53) was also similar. No significant difference was detected between TRA and TFA in terms of in-hospital NACE (0 vs. 0, P = 1.00) and 1-year MACE (21.4% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.19).

Conclusions:

Compared with TFA, TRA had lower angiographic success but had a similar procedure success in post-CABG patients. TRA was also associated with decreased bleeding and shortened hospital stay.

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.

A randomized comparison of the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary artery bypass graft angiography and intervention: the RADIAL-CABG Trial (RADIAL Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Angiography and Intervention)

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare and contrast use and radiation exposure using radial versus femoral access during cardiac catheterization of patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available on the relative merits of radial compared with femoral access for cardiac catheterization in patients who had previously undergone CABG surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive patients (N = 128) having previously undergone CABG surgery and referred for cardiac catheterization were randomized to radial or femoral access. The primary study endpoint was contrast volume. Secondary endpoints included fluoroscopy time, procedure time, patient and operator radiation exposure, vascular complications, and major adverse cardiac events. Analyses were by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Compared with femoral access, diagnostic coronary angiography via radial access was associated with a higher mean contrast volume (142 ± 39 ml vs. 171 ± 72 ml, p < 0.01), longer procedure time (21.9 ± 6.8 min vs. 34.2 ± 14.7 min, p < 0.01), greater patient air kerma (kinetic energy released per unit mass) radiation exposure (1.08 ± 0.54 Gy vs. 1.29 ± 0.67 Gy, p = 0.06), and higher operator radiation dose (first operator: 1.3 ± 1.0 mrem vs. 2.6 ± 1.7 mrem, p < 0.01; second operator 0.8 ± 1.1 mrem vs. 1.8 ± 2.1 mrem, p = 0.01). Fewer patients underwent ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the radial group (37.5% vs. 46.9%, p = 0.28) and radial PCI procedures were less complex. The incidences of the primary and secondary endpoints was similar with femoral and radial access among PCI patients. Access crossover was higher in the radial group (17.2% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.01) and vascular access site complications were similar in both groups (3.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who had previously undergone CABG surgery, transradial diagnostic coronary angiography was associated with greater contrast use, longer procedure time, and greater access crossover and operator radiation exposure compared with transfemoral angiography. (RADIAL Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Angiography and Intervention [RADIAL-CABG] Trial; NCT01446263).