Ultrasound-guided femoral access in patients with vascular closure devices: a prespecified analysis of the randomised UNIVERSAL trial

Ultrasound Guidance for Transradial Access in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although ultrasound (US) guidance for vascular access has been widely adopted, its use for transradial access (TRA) in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory is rare. There is a perception that US guidance does not offer a clinically relevant benefit over traditional palpation-guided TRA, amplified by inconsistent findings of individual studies.

METHOD

A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library identified studies comparing US to palpation-guided TRA for cardiac catheterisation. Studies evaluating radial artery (RA) cannulation for any other reason were excluded. Event rates and risk ratios (RRs) were pooled for meta-analysis. Access failure was the primary outcome. A random-effects model was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 977 records screened, four studies with a total of 1,718 patients (861 US-guided and 864 palpation-guided procedures) were included in the meta-analysis. Most procedures were elective. The pooled analysis showed US guidance significantly lowered the risk of access failure (RR 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.97; p=0.04). Heterogeneity was moderate (I2=51.2%; p=0.105). There was a strong trend to improved first-pass success with US (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.00-1.66; p=0.05; I2=83.8%), although no differences were found in rates of difficult access (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.07-1.18; p=0.09; I2=88.3%). Salvage US guidance was successful in 30/41 (73.2%) patients following failed palpation-guided TRA. No differences were found in already low complication rates including RA spasm (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.70-1.99; p=0.53; I2=0.0%) and bleeding (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.46-3.80; p=0.60; I2=0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

US guidance was found to improve TRA success in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether routine, selective, or salvage use of US confers the most RA protection, patient satisfaction, and overall clinical benefit. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022332238).

Ultrasound guidance for transfemoral access in coronary procedures: an individual participant-level data metaanalysis from the femoral ultrasound trialist collaboration

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials of ultrasound (US)-guided transfemoral access (TFA) for coronary procedures have shown mixed results.

AIMS

We aimed to compare US-guided versus non-US-guided TFA from randomised data in an individual participant-level data (IPD) meta-analysis.

METHODS

We completed a systematic review and an IPD meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials comparing US-guided versus non-US-guided TFA for coronary procedures. We performed a one-stage mixed-model meta-analysis using the intention-to-treat population from included trials. The primary outcome was a composite of major vascular complications or major bleeding within 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 2,441 participants (1,208 US-guided, 1,233 non-US-guided) from 4 randomised clinical trials were included. The mean age was 65.5 years, 27.0% were female, and 34.5% underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention. The incidence of major vascular complications or major bleeding (34/1,208 [2.8%] vs 55/1,233 [4.5%]; odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-0.94; p=0.026) was lower in the US-guided TFA group. In the prespecified subgroup of participants who received a vascular closure device, those randomised to US-guided TFA experienced a reduction in the primary outcome (2.1% vs 5.6%; OR 0.36, 95% CI: 0.19-0.69), while no benefit for US guidance was observed in the subgroup without vascular closure devices (4.1% vs 3.3%; OR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.65-2.26; interaction p=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

In participants undergoing coronary procedures by TFA, US guidance decreased the composite outcome of major vascular complications or bleeding and may be especially helpful when using vascular closure devices.

Bleeding in acute coronary syndrome: from definitions, incidence, and prognosis to prevention and management

INTRODUCTION

In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the ischemic benefit of antithrombotic treatment is counterbalanced by the risk of bleeding. The recognition that bleeding events have prognostic implications (i.e. mortality) similar to recurrent ischemic events led to the development of treatment regimens aimed at balancing both ischemic and bleeding risks.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims at describing definitions, incidence, and prognosis related to bleeding events in ACS patients as well as bleeding-avoidance strategies for their prevention and management of bleeding complications.

EXPERT OPINION

Management of ACS patients has witnessed remarkable progress after the shift in focusing on the trade-off between ischemia and bleeding. Efforts in standardizing bleeding definitions will allow for better defining the prognostic impact of different types of bleeding events and enable to identify the high-bleeding risk patient. Such efforts will allow to balance the trade-off between the thrombotic and bleeding risk of the individual patient translating into better downward diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making. Novel strategies aiming at maximizing the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens as well as the development of novel antithrombotic drugs and reversal agents and technological advances will allow for optimization of bleeding-avoidance strategies and management of bleeding complications.