Comparison of treatment outcomes in patients > or =80 years undergoing transradial versus transfemoral coronary intervention

[Radial approach in the elderly]

Due to the steady increase in life expectancy, the number of patients over 80 years of age proposed for coronary angioplasty is increasing significantly. The elderly patient is a patient at high cardiovascular risk and high risk of bleeding; whose severity of prognosis depends of comorbidities. The radial approach presents particularities and technical difficulties that have to be known in this part of the population, but reduce vascular and hemorrhagic complications, as well as mortality. Because of greater safety, the radial approach is therefore the first choice for the elderly.

Meta-analysis comparing radial versus femoral approach in patients 75 years and older undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures

Introduction

Elderly patients (≥75 years) undergoing coronary angioplasty are increasing. Meta-analyses have shown the benefits of radial access which might reduce hospital stay by decreasing access site complications with associated secondary benefits, however, the population over the age of 75 years were not a large part of the cohort and may behave differently due to increased atherosclerotic burden and age-related vascular changes. In addition, complications unique to this age group such as delirium and deconditioning might occur which could have a bearing on the outcome.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, SCOPUS, Medline, Dynamed, Cochrane. The search terms used were femoral and radial, femoral versus radial, radial or femoral access site, radial or femoral comparison. There were no restrictions.

Results

There was a significant decrease (85%)in the incidence of access site complications in the radial group. The time to achieve ambulation was lower by 14.25 h (8.86–19.56 h). However, the incidence of crossover (in effect failure to perform catheterization by radial access) from radial to femoral was significantly higher. Radial access was associated with longer procedural times (2.75 min) and increased contrast dose however, there was no statistical difference in the fluoroscopy time between the two.

Conclusions

Radial access has similar benefits in elderly patients as those under the age of 75 and may be beneficial in patients at risk of delirium or deconditioning. However, crossover rates, contrast dose and procedure time were higher. It is conceivable that as experience is gained, these rates will diminish.

Guideline recommended door-to-balloon time can be achieved in transradial primary PCI--the usefulness of a dedicated radial guide catheter

BACKGROUND

Radial access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is well established in terms of safety and efficacy. However, there are limited data on the impact of the use of a single dedicated radial guide catheter in primary PCI using radial access.

AIMS

To determine the overall cardiac catheterisation laboratory to balloon time (CCL2BT) and door to balloon (D2BT) time in transradial PPCI. To determine the impact of a single dedicated radial guide catheter on CCLD2BT and D2BT in transradial PPCI compared to conventional transfemoral PPCI.

METHODS

The procedural and clinical outcomes of consecutive patients who had transradial primary PCI between 2005 and 2009 were included in this study and compared with a matched cohort who underwent transfemoral primary PCI.

RESULTS

Overall D2BT and inpatient MACE were similar between the radial (n=53) and femoral (n=53) groups (85 and 82 min, P=0.889; 0% and 1.8% P=0.317 respectively). An increase in the CCL2BT and procedural times was noted in the radial compared to the femoral group (34 min versus 29 min P=0.028; 15.8 min versus 11.6 min P=0.001). When a single radial guide catheter was used for the entire procedure, there was no difference in CCL2BT, D2BT and procedural times between the radial and femoral groups (31 min versus 29 min P=0.599; 74 min versus 82 min P=0.418; 50 min versus 47 min P=0.086).

CONCLUSION

The radial approach is safe and results in guideline recommended D2BT in STEMI. The use of a dedicated radial guide catheter reduces treatment time, demonstrating equivalent times to a femoral approach.

Primer on statistical interpretation or methods report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Propensity-score matching is frequently used in the cardiology literature. Recent systematic reviews have found that this method is, in general, poorly implemented in the medical literature. The study objective was to examine the quality of the implementation of propensity-score matching in the general cardiology literature.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 44 articles published in the American Heart Journal, the American Journal of Cardiology, Circulation, the European Heart Journal, Heart, the International Journal of Cardiology, and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2006, were examined. Twenty of the 44 studies did not provide adequate information on how the propensity-score-matched pairs were formed. Fourteen studies did not report whether matching on the propensity score balanced baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects in the matched sample. Only 4 studies explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for matched studies to compare baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects. Only 11 (25%) of the 44 studies explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for the analysis of matched data when estimating the effect of treatment on the outcomes. Only 2 studies described the matching method used, assessed balance in baseline covariates by appropriate methods, and used appropriate statistical methods to estimate the treatment effect and its significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of propensity-score matching was poor in the cardiology literature. Suggestions for improving the reporting and analysis of studies that use propensity-score matching are provided.

Impact of Introducer Sheath Coating on Endothelial Function in Humans After Transradial Coronary Procedures

Background— The aim of this study was to compare the impact of transradial catheterization with hydrophilic-coated catheter sheaths versus uncoated sheaths on NO-mediated endothelial-dependent and -independent vasodilator function.

Methods and Results— Thirty-five subjects undergoing transradial catheterization were recruited and assessed before and the day after catheterization. A subgroup was also assessed 3 to 4 months after catheterization. Subjects received hydrophilic-coated sheaths (n=15) or uncoated sheaths (n=20). Radial artery flow-mediated dilatation and endothelium- and NO-dependent arterial dilatation were assessed within the region of sheath placement. Glyceryl trinitrate endothelium-independent NO-mediated function was also assessed. The noncatheterized arm provided an internal control. Flow-mediated dilatation in the catheterized arm decreased from 10.3�3.8% to 5.3�3.3% and 8.1�2.4% to 5.2�3.7% in the coated and uncoated groups, respectively ( P <0.01). These values returned toward baseline levels ≈3 months later (coated, 6.4�1.4%; uncoated, 9.4�4.1%; P <0.05) versus postprocedure. Glyceryl trinitrate decreased from 14.8�7.2% to 9.5�4.1% ( P <0.05) in the coated group and from 12.2�4.6% to 7.5�4.2% ( P <0.01) in the uncoated group. Values returned to baseline at ≈3 months (coated, 16.6�5.6%; uncoated, 12.1�3.9%; P <0.05). There was no difference in the magnitude of decrease in flow-mediated dilatation or glyceryl trinitrate between coated and uncoated groups. No changes in function occurred in the noncatheterized arm.

Conclusions— Placement of a catheter sheath inside the radial artery disrupts vasodilator function, which recovers after 3 months. No differences were evident between hydrophilic-coated and uncoated sheaths.

Comparison of outcomes in patients > or =70 years versus <70 years after transradial coronary stenting with maximal antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome

Elderly patients are at a higher risk for complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) when performed through the femoral approach. The impact of age on complications in patients treated using the transradial approach is not known. The bleeding and ischemic outcomes at 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years after transradial PCI and maximal antiplatelet therapy were compared in 1,348 patients aged <70 or > or =70 years with acute coronary syndromes. All patients received aspirin and clopidogrel before catheterization, followed by abciximab at the time of PCI. Patients aged > or =70 years (n = 259 [19%]) had more hypertension, dyslipidemia, family histories, and previous coronary artery bypass grafting. Older patients had lower baseline hemoglobin, platelet, and creatinine clearance values, and they also more often had 2- or 3-vessel syndrome (p = 0.001), as well as longer procedure durations (p = 0.024). At 30 days, the rates of major adverse cardiac events and major bleeding were similar in older and younger patients. Only the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (p = 0.021) and mild to moderate access-site hematoma were higher in older patients (p = 0.036). The rates of major adverse cardiac events were also similar in the 2 age groups at 6 months (6% vs 9%, p = 0.08), 1 year (10% vs 13%, p = 0.22), and 3 years (19% vs 20%, p = 0.73), but mortality was significantly higher at 3 years in patients aged > or =70 years (p = 0.0031). In conclusion, age per se is not a predictor of major adverse cardiac events or major bleeding after transradial PCI with maximal antiplatelet therapy. However, older patients remain more prone to gastrointestinal bleeding and local hematoma compared to younger patients, and preventive measures need to be further investigated.

A comparison of the radial and the femoral approaches in primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Access site complications are reduced using radial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is concern that technical difficulties using this approach can delay achievement of reperfusion during primary or rescue PCI for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) especially in elderly patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 155 patients (pts) > or = 70 years who underwent primary or rescue PCI for AMI; radial (Group1; 87 pts) or femoral (Group2; 68 pts). Baseline characteristics, the amount of IIB/IIIA inhibitor, contrast and heparin used, and TIMI flow pre and post PCI were similar in both groups (P>0.05). Time from arrival in the catheterization laboratory to the first balloon inflation (Group 1: 44.0+/-21.5 versus Group 2 38.8+/-18.7 min) was also similar, but was significantly longer (61.2+/-11.1 min) compared to both groups in patients with a failed radial approach (7 pts, 8%). Angiographic success, and in-hospital MACE were also similar in the two groups, but vascular access site complications were significantly higher in Group 2 (0 versus 2.9%, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of the radial approach in elderly patients undergoing primary and rescue PCI, when successful, is safe and effective as the femoral approach, and leads to fewer vascular complications.

Adverse local reactions to the use of hydrophilic sheaths for radial artery canulation

There have been reports of local sterile inflammatory reactions with the use of Cook hydrophilic-coated sheaths (HCS) for transradial coronary angiography/intervention. Our aim was to gauge the extent of radial artery access site complications following radial artery canulation and to compare the incidence of such complications with HCS versus non-coated sheaths in our hospital. We undertook a retrospective questionnaire-based postal study, receiving replies from 1283 patients who had transradial coronary angiography/percutaneous coronary intervention in our institution between Feb 2005 and Oct 2006. HCS had been used in 856 of these patients. Patients reported adverse local reactions at the access site in 12.9% of cases, including pain (57.2%), swelling (27.7%) and non-specific sensory abnormalities (13.2%). A total of 5.0% of patients sought medical help for their problem, mainly (78.1%) from their general practitioner. The use of a HCS compared to a non-coated sheath was associated with a significant excess of patient-reported adverse reactions (14.6% vs. 9.6%, p=0.015). A logistic regression analysis confirmed that the use of a hydrophilic sheath (OR 1.5, (1.05-2.26)) and female gender (OR 1.9, (1.4-2.8)), were independent predictors of self-reported adverse outcomes after controlling for possible confounders.

[Vascular approaches and closure devices for percutaneous coronary intervention]

The choice of a transradial or transfemoral approach remains a pivotal decision in percutaneous coronary angioplasty. We discuss here the varying criteria leading to a rational choice in the arterial access choice. Since the emergent transradial approach in France has led to a dramatic reduction in local vascular complications, we also discuss the remaining place of femoral approach and the usefulness of femoral percutaneous closure devices.

Comparison of radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of a radial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in octogenarians is not well established.

METHODS

To evaluate the benefits of a radial approach for preventing vascular complications after PCI, clinical, procedural, and outcome data were prospectively collected and compared for 228 octogenarians undergoing elective PCI either through a radial or a femoral approach.

RESULTS

Radial approach was associated with longer cannulation (3.1 +/- 2.9 vs. 2.0 +/- 2.0 min, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy times (19.3 +/- 16.1 vs. 16.1 +/- 11.8 min, P = 0.04), greater utilization of contrast media (224 +/- 46 vs. 182 +/- 20 ml, P < 0.001) and higher crossover rate (11 vs 4%, P = 0.03) to alternate access site compared with the femoral approach. However, ambulation time (5.2 +/- 3.1 vs. 11.6 +/- 6.3 hr, P < 0.001), access site bleeding (4 vs. 14%, P = 0.007), hematoma (1 vs. 11%, P = 0.001) or any vascular complication (5 vs 26%, P = 0.001) were significantly reduced with a radial approach. Procedural success rates were equivalent with both approaches. Multivariate regression analysis identified radial approach (OR = 0.23; CI = 0.08, 0.65) as an independent negative predictor of postprocedural vascular complications.

CONCLUSION

Radial approach for PCI in octogenarians is technically challenging for the operator and exposes patients to greater volume of nephrotoxic contrast media. However, it results in early ambulation and significantly reduces vascular complications in this high risk population. These findings support a strategy of preprocedural risk assessment and use of radial approach for PCI in a select group of octogenarians to maximize benefits offered by this technique.

[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.