The fluoroscopy time, door to balloon time, contrast volume use and prevalence of vascular access site failure with transradial versus transfemoral approach in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: A systematic review & meta-analysis

Transradial access for cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures: A meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

Transradial access (TRA) for diagnostic and interventional neurointerventional procedures has recently gained traction over transfemoral access (TFA) in the neurointerventional community. This meta-analysis aims to assess and summarize the utility of TRA in cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed utilizing Pubmed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Using PRISMA guidelines, records were extracted with the following search terms: transradial approach, transradial access, radial access, cerebral angiogram, cerebral angiography, neurointervention, and neuroendovascular. The primary outcomes assessed were case success rate, complication rate, and crossover rate from TRA to TFA. Secondary analysis was performed on procedure time, fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy time per vessel (diagnostic procedures only), contrast dose, radial artery diameter, distal radial artery diameter, and patient preference for TRA over TFA.

RESULTS

Sixty-two full-text articles were analyzed for this meta-analysis, representing 12,927 diagnostic and interventional TRA access patients. Our analysis revealed a combined diagnostic and interventional case success rate of 95.9% and complication rate of 3.5%, with crossover to TFA occurring in 4.9% of cases.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that TRA access for diagnostic angiography and neurointerventional procedures is a safe and effective approach, though determining a true complication rate is challenging as the definition of TRA complications has changed in various publications over time.

Culprit vessel revascularization first with primary use of a dedicated transradial guiding catheter to reduce door to balloon time in primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Background

The effect of a single transradial guiding catheter (STGC) for culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) first on door-to-balloon (D2B) time remains unclear.

Materials and methods

Between February 2017 and July 2019, 560 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were randomized into either the STGC group (n = 280) or the control group (n = 280) according to direct culprit vessel PCI with a STGC. In the STGC group, a dedicated transraidal guiding catheter (6F either MAC3.5 or JL3.5) was used for the treatment of electrocardiogram (ECG)-guided culprit vessel first and later contralateral angiography. In the control group, a universal diagnostic catheter (5F Tiger II) was used for complete coronary angiography, followed by guiding catheter selection for culprit vessel PCI. The primary endpoint was D2B time, and the secondary endpoint included catheterization laboratory door-to-balloon (C2B), procedural, fluoroscopy times, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days.

Results

The median D2B time was significantly shorter in the STGC group compared to the control group (53.9 vs. 58.4 min; p = 0.003). The C2B, procedural, and fluoroscopy times were also shorter in the STGC group (C2B: 17.3 vs. 24.5 min, p < 0.001; procedural: 45.2 vs. 49.0 min, p = 0.012; and fluoroscopy: 9.7 vs. 11.3 min, p = 0.025). More patients achieved the goal of D2B time within 90 min (93.9% vs. 87.1%, p = 0.006) and 60 min (61.4% vs. 51.1%, p = 0.013) in the STGC group. Radial artery perforation (RAP) was significantly reduced in the STGC group compared with the control group (0.7% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.033). MACE at 30 days was similar (2.5% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.172) between the two groups.

Conclusion

ECG-guided immediate intervention on culprit vessel with a STGC can reduce D2B, C2B, procedural, and fluoroscopy times (ECG-guided Immediate Primary PCI for Culprit Vessel to Reduce Door to Device Time; NCT03272451).

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with less bleeding and mortality than transfemoral access (TFA). However, patients in cardiogenic shock (CS) are more often treated via TFA. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of TRA vs. TFA in CS.

METHODS

Systematic review was performed querying PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov for studies comparing TRA to TFA in PCI for CS. Outcomes included in-hospital, 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, major and access site bleeding, TIMI3 (thrombolytics in myocardial infarction) flow, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects models.

RESULTS

Six prospective and eight retrospective studies (TRA, n = 8032; TFA, n = 23 031) were identified. TRA was associated with lower in-hospital (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.66, P < 0.0001), 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, as well as less in-hospital major (RR 0.41, 0.31-0.56, P < 0.001) and access site bleeding (RR 0.42, 0.23-0.77, P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences in post-PCI coronary flow grade, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume between TRA vs. TFA.

CONCLUSIONS

In PCI for STEMI with CS, TRA is associated with significantly lower mortality and bleeding complications than TFA while achieving similar TIMI3 flow and procedural success rates.

Transradial cerebral angiography becomes more efficient than transfemoral angiography: lessons from 500 consecutive angiograms

BACKGROUND

Transradial arterial access (TRA) for cerebral diagnostic angiography is associated with fewer access site complications than transfemoral access (TFA). However, concerns about increased procedure time and radiation exposure with TRA may slow its adoption. Our objective was to measure TRA rates of success and fluoroscopy time per vessel after 'radial-first' adoption and to compare these rates to those obtained with TFA.

METHODS

We examined 500 consecutive cerebral angiograms on an intent-to-treat basis during the first full year of radial-first adoption, recording patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes.

RESULTS

Over a 9-month period at a single center, 457 of 500 angiograms (91.4%) were performed with intent-to-treat via TRA, and 431 cases (86.2%) were ultimately performed via TRA. One patient (0.2%) experienced a temporary neurologic deficit in the TRA group, and none (0%) did in the TFA group (p=0.80). The mean±SD fluoroscopy time per vessel decreased significantly from the first half of the study to the second half for TRA (5.0±3.8 vs 3.4±3.5 min/vessel; p<0.001), while TFA time remained unchanged (3.7±1.8 vs 3.5±1.4 min/vessel; p=0.69). The median fluoroscopy time per vessel for TRA became faster than that for TFA after 150 angiograms.

CONCLUSION

Of 500 consecutive angiograms performed during the first full year of radial-first implementation, 86.2% were performed successfully using TRA. TRA efficiency exceeded that of TFA after 150 angiograms. Concerns about the length of procedure or radiation exposure should not be barriers to TRA adoption.

Transradial artery approach in STEMI patients reperfused early and late by either primary PCI or pharmaco-invasive approach

•

There was a non-significant difference regarding LVEF and TIMI flow between both PPCI and PI.

•

Myocardium wall preservation was significant in early PI (P = 0.023)

•

Mean procedural and fluoroscopic time were 35.1 ± 6.1 and 6.3 ± 0.9 min.

•

No reported entry site complications also no difference in primary end point (P = 0.326).

•

It is safe and effective to use TRA in STEMI patients who reperfused by either early or late PPCI or PI.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of transradial artery approach (TRA) in STEMI patients who reperfused early (≤3 h from symptoms onset) or late (>3 h from symptoms onset) by either PPCI or pharmaco-invasive strategy (PI), thrombolysis followed by CA. Therefore, a total 143 STEMI patients (who were presented within 12 h from symptoms onset or 12–24 h with an evidence of ongoing ischemia or suffered from an acute STEMI were randomized for either PI or PPCI. Eighty-two patients were assigned to PI arm while the rest assigned were to PPCI arm. Patients who were taken to a non-PCI capable hospital received streptokinase and were then transferred to our Hospital for CA. TRA was used in the catheterization laboratory for all patients. Each arm was divided according to reperfusion time into early and late subgroups. A primary endpoint was death, shock, congestive heart failure, or reinfarction up to 30 days. There was a non-significant difference regarding LVEF in both arms. Myocardium wall preservation was significant in the early PI arm (P = 0.023). TIMI flow had no discrepancy between both arms (P = 0.569). Mean procedural and fluoroscopic time were 35.1 ± 6.1 and 6.3 ± 0.9 min. There were no reported entry site complications. There was no difference in primary endpoint complications (P = 0.326) considering the different times of patients’ reperfusion (early; P = 0.696 vs. late; P = 0.424). In conclusion, it is safe and effective to use TRA in STEMI patients who reperfused by either early or late PPCI or PI. We recommend PI for STEMI patients with delay presentation if PPCI is not available.

Transradial Artery Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Early revascularization is the gold standard for management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The use of transradial artery access (TRA) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased in recent years and has emerged as a safe and effective approach to PCI in high-risk patients, with advantages in reduced major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and all-cause mortality when compared with transfemoral artery access (TFA). Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated these advantages of TRA vs. TFA PCI in STEMI patients. Although there remains a lack of dedicated randomized trials in CS, observational data suggest benefits on the same endpoints as in STEMI with TRA vs. TFA PCI in CS. This review summarizes the existing literature on the use of TRA compared to TFA for STEMI and CS patients; the reduction of major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and mortality associated with TRA in STEMI and CS; and technical considerations and challenges in the care of these high-risk patient populations.

Transradial versus Transfemoral access in patients undergoing peripheral artery angioplasty/stenting: A meta-analysis

Transradial (TR) access has been extensively compared to transfemoral (TF) access in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions, with TR method showing a clear benefit over the latter. However, comparative data concerning peripheral artery endovascular interventions has been limited in the literature. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted in order to compare main outcomes between TR and TF access in patients undergoing peripheral artery angioplasty and/or stenting. Main outcomes included technical success, major/minor bleeding risk, access site complications, hospital stay, death, myocardial infarction, neurological events and other procedural parameters. TR and TF access methods seem to be associated with similar early outcomes in patients undergoing non-coronary endovascular angioplasty and/or stenting although paucity of data necessitates the conduction of better designed studies.