Ad hoc transradial coronary angioplasty strategy: experience and results in a single centre

Comparison of costs between transradial and transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention: a cohort analysis from the Premier research database

BACKGROUND

Transradial intervention (TRI) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with shorter length of stay, fewer bleeding complications, and higher patient satisfaction. Less is known about the economic implications of TRI in contemporary practice.

METHODS

This is a retrospective inpatient cohort analysis using medical data from the Premier research database (Premier Inc, Charlotte, NC), which contains approximately one-fifth of all acute care hospitalizations in the US annually. The database was queried to identify patients undergoing PCI from 2004 to 2009. Patients with TRI were identified by center-level charge codes for radial-specific devices and matched one-to-many with patients undergoing transfemoral intervention (TFI). Adjusted total hospitalization costs were compared between patients undergoing TRI and TFI. Patients were additionally classified by periprocedural risk of bleeding as low (<1%), moderate (1%-3%), and high (>3%).

RESULTS

There were 609 TRI cases matched with 60,900 TFI cases. Total adjusted costs for TRI were $11,736 ± $6,748 vs $12,288 ± $23,418 for TFI, a difference of $553 favoring TRI (95% CI $45-$1,060, P = .033). Day-of-procedure costs were similar, at $17 higher for TRI compared with TFI (95% CI -$318 to $353, P = .37); however, costs from the following day until discharge were significantly lower for TRI (-$571, 95 % CI -$912 to $229, P = .001). Postprocedure costs were lower for patients with TRI vs patients with TFI at moderate (-$478, 95% CI -$887 to $69, P = .022) and high (-$917, 95% CI -$1,814 to $19, P = .045) risk of bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide administrative hospital database, transradial compared with transfemoral PCI access was associated with lower average direct hospital costs and shorter length of hospital stay. Postprocedure costs associated with TRI were also lower in patients at greater bleeding risk.

Comparison of transradial and femoral approaches for percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite lower risks of access site-related complications with transradial approach (TRA), its clinical benefit for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing TRA and transfemoral approach (TFA) for PCI.

METHODS

Randomized trials and observational studies (1993-2011) comparing TRA with TFA for PCI with reports of ischemic and bleeding outcomes were included. Crude and adjusted (for age and sex) odds ratios (OR) were estimated by a hierarchical Bayesian random-effects model with prespecified stratification for observational and randomized designs. The primary outcomes were rates of death, combined incidence of death or myocardial infarction, bleeding, and transfusions, early (≤ 30 days) and late after PCI.

RESULTS

We collected data from 76 studies (15 randomized, 61 observational) involving a total of 761,919 patients. Compared with TFA, TRA was associated with a 78% reduction in bleeding (OR 0.22, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.16-0.29) and 80% in transfusions (OR 0.20, 95% CrI 0.11-0.32). These findings were consistent in both randomized and observational studies. Early after PCI, there was a 44% reduction of mortality with TRA (OR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.45-0.67), although the effect was mainly due to observational studies (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.40-0.63, adjusted OR 0.49 [95% CrI 0.37-0.60]), with an OR of 0.80 (95% CrI 0.49-1.23) in randomized trials.

CONCLUSION

Our results combining observational and randomized studies show that PCI performed by TRA is associated with substantially less risks of bleeding and transfusions compared with TFA. Benefit on the incidence of death or combined death or myocardial infarction is found in observational studies but remains inconclusive in randomized trials.

Letter regarding the article "Transradial access compared with femoral puncture closure devices in percutaneous coronary procedures": an underestimated revolution

We comment on the results of a recently published study that shows how the transradial approach for coronary procedures is safer and is preferred by patients. We comment on the possibility of using a stronger antithrombotic treatment in case of high risk percutaneous interventions. Is scientific evidence regarding the transradial approach enough to warrant its widespread use?

Overview of the transradial approach in percutaneous coronary intervention

Thirteen years have passed since the first percutaneous coronary intervention was performed at Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis in Amsterdam using the transradial approach (TRA). Since then TRA has spread through the interventional community and many centres have now adopted TRA as the arterial access of choice. This review is focused on the hot issues and the latest developments in this field. The following subjects will be addressed and discussed: drawbacks and learning curve, procedural technique, indications (with particular attention to acute coronary patients), complications, contraindications, nurse workload, patient management, and economics.

Ad Hoc percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with stable coronary artery disease—A study of prevalence, safety, and variation in use from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR®)

OBJECTIVE

To utilize the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) to monitor the performance and safety of ad hoc PCIs.

BACKGROUND

The performance of ad hoc PCI remains controversial. Patients' preference, cost, and vascular access issues favor an ad hoc strategy. Adequate time for thoughtful decision-making, scheduling complexity, informed consent, and physician reimbursement favor PCI on a subsequent day.

METHODS

We analyzed results in 68,528 patients with stable angina entered in the ACC-NCDR from 2001-2003. Ad hoc PCI was evaluated in many clinical and nonclinical subgroups. A multivariable analysis was performed to determine whether ad hoc PCI had an independent relationship with complications or procedure success.

RESULTS

Overall, 60.6% of patients underwent ad hoc PCI. There was no difference in ad hoc PCI mortality, renal failure, or vascular complications from staged PCI. A lower percentage of patients at high vs. low risk and with vs. without renal failure underwent ad hoc PCIs (58.6% vs.63.0% and 50.7% vs. 60.9% respectively). There was wide variation in the performance of ad hoc PCIs according to payer (70.2-60.3%), hospital PCI volume (67-50.2%), hospital owner (89.7-59.6%), and geographic area (75.5-47.4%). Ad hoc PCI per se was not independently related to PCI success or complications.

CONCLUSIONS

PCI success was related to patient/lesion related factors and not to the performance of ad hoc PCIs per se. Although ad hoc PCI can be performed in more patients than at present, this strategy will never be possible in all patients at all times.