Radial versus femoral approach for same-day inter-facility transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention

Cerebral angiography in outpatient endovascular centers: roadmap and lessons learned from interventional radiology, cardiology, and vascular surgery

A growing proportion of percutaneous procedures are performed in outpatient centers. The shift from hospitals to ambulatory surgery centers and office-based laboratories has been driven by a number of factors, including declining reimbursements, increased patient demand, and competition for hospital resources. This transition has been dominated by the interventional radiology, cardiology, and vascular surgery fields. Cerebral angiography, in contrast, is still performed almost exclusively in a hospital-based setting, despite sharing many features with other endovascular procedures commonly performed in outpatient centers. As interest grows in performing cerebral angiography in outpatient endovascular centers, much can be learned from the decades of experience that our interventional colleagues have in the outpatient setting. In this article we examine the outpatient experience of other interventional fields and apply key principles to evaluate the prospect of outpatient neurointervention. The literature suggests that cerebral angiography can feasibly be performed in an outpatient center in both private and academic settings, as some groups have begun to do. Outpatient endovascular centers have helped to improve the patient experience, liberate inpatient resources, and control costs in other interventional fields, and might offer neurointerventionalists an opportunity to do the same.

Radial artery dilatation to improve access and lower complications during coronary angiography: the RADIAL trial

AIMS

The aim of this study was to explore the use of prolonged occlusion flow-mediated dilatation (PO-FMD) to dilate the radial artery prior to cannulation to increase cannulation success, reduce puncture attempts and reduce access-site complications in transradial coronary angiography.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1,156 patients undergoing transradial coronary angiography were randomised into PO-FMD and sham PO-FMD groups. PO-FMD was achieved by a 10-minute inflation of a blood pressure cuff on the arm to above systolic pressure, followed by deflation with resultant radial artery dilation. In the sham PO-FMD group the cuff was not inflated. Operators were blinded to the intervention. Five hundred and eighty (580) patients were randomised to the sham PO-FMD group and 576 to the PO-FMD group. Cannulation failure was reduced with PO-FMD, with cannulation failure rates of 2.7% in the PO-FMD group and 5.8% in the sham PO-FMD group (p=0.01).The number of puncture attempts was reduced with the use of PO-FMD, with a median of one attempt in the PO-FMD group and two in the sham PO-FMD group (p<0.001). Radial artery pulsation loss (RAPL) was reduced with PO-FMD, with 1.4% in the PO-FMD group and 3.8% in the sham PO-FMD group (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

PO-FMD reduces cannulation failure rates, decreases puncture attempts, and decreases RAPL during transradial coronary angiography.

Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy

AIMS

With the present study, we sought to determine the safety of three different endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) access routes in 514 patients admitted for diagnostic workup of heart failure of unknown aetiology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this retrospective monocentric cohort study, we analysed 514 consecutive patients with heart failure without evidence of significant coronary artery disease or valvular disease undergoing EMB between November 2013 and December 2018, stratified in three access route groups: transradial arterial left ventricular (LV-)EMB (323 patients), transfemoral LV-EMB (138 patients), and transfemoral right ventricular (RV-)EMB (53 patients). Patients undergoing selective transradial LV-EMB were older compared with patients undergoing selective transfemoral LV-EMB or RV-EMB [transradial LV-EMB: 56.0 (45.0/64.0) vs. transfemoral LV-EMB: 53 (42.5/64.5), P = 0.455; transradial LV-EMB: 56 (45.0/64.0) vs. RV-EMB: 53 (42.5/64), P = 0.695] and presented more often in New York Heart Association-functional class III and IV. A total of eight major complications including permanent atrioventricular block requiring pacemaker implantation, pericardial tamponade necessitating pericardiocentesis, stroke and transient cerebral ischaemic attack as well as severe valvular damage, vascular access site complications, and ventricular fibrillation were documented with no significant differences between the groups (8/514, 1.5%). Minor complications such as transient chest pain, non-sustained electrocardiogram abnormalities, and transient atrioventricular block were rare and equally distributed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Transradial LV-EMB is a safe procedure for experienced radial operators and non-inferior compared with transfemoral LV-EMB and RV-EMB. An accurate peri-procedural and post-procedural monitoring and follow-up care should be recommended for all patients undergoing this procedure in order to identify potential complications.