Radial access for percutaneous coronary procedure: relationship between operator expertise and complications

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate (1) whether the learning curve of new catheterization laboratory operators increases the incidence of complications of transradial access during percutaneous coronary interventions and (2) whether manual compression with a two-step approach is safe and efficient for radial access hemostasis.
Methods We performed a prospective study with all consecutive patients who underwent a coronary diagnostic or intervention procedure with radial access. The primary end point was a composite of pulseless radial artery of the wrist and hematoma evaluated after 24 hours. The secondary end point of efficacy was defined as the presence of bleeding or hematoma after 30 seconds.
Results From March 2016 to June 2016, 150 consecutive patients, of whom 147 underwent coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention through radial access, were included in the present study. The primary end point was present in 33%, but pulseless radial artery of the wrist was present only in 5.3%. We found that the incidence of primary end point was statistically different according to the number of puncture attempts, with a cutoff of two punctures with blood. The secondary end point of safety was present only in 4.7% of the cases.
Conclusion Radial access is feasible and safe even if performed by training physicians. Manual compression with early evaluation after 30 seconds is a safe technique for managing the radial access after sheath removal.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Piccolo R, "Stable coronary artery disease: revascularisation and invasive strategies" 386 : 702-713, 2015

2 Politi L, "Randomized clinical trial on short-time compression with Kaolin-filled pad: a new strategy to avoid early bleeding and subacute radial artery occlusion after percutaneous coronary intervention" 24 : 65-72, 2011

3 Valgimigli M, "Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomized multicentre trial" 385 : 2465-2476, 2015

4 Ferrante G, "Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions across the entire spectrum of patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials" 9 : 1419-1434, 2016

5 Rashid M, "Radial artery occlusion after transradial interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis" 2016

6 Barringhaus KG, "Operator and institutional experience reduces room-to-balloon times for transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention" 26 : 80-86, 2014

7 Biondi-Zoccai GG, "Long-term benefits of an early invasive management in acute coronary syndromes depend on intracoronary stenting and aggressive antiplatelet treatment: a metaregression" 149 : 504-511, 2005

8 Pancholy SB, "Impact of two different hemostatic devices on radial artery outcomes after transradial catheterization" 21 : 101-104, 2009

9 Huang FY, "Gender disparity in the safety and efficacy of radial and femoral access for coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis" 67 : 810-819, 2016

10 Yun K, "Effectiveness of a compressive device in controlling hemorrhage following radial artery catheterization" 2 : 104-109, 2015

11 Pancholy SB, "Effect of duration of hemostatic compression on radial artery occlusion after transradial access" 79 : 78-81, 2012

12 Singh G, "Comparative analysis of radial versus femoral diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures in a cardiology training program" 28 : 254-257, 2016

13 Ball WT, "Characterization of operator learning curve for transradial coronary interventions" 4 : 336-341, 2011

14 Chhatriwalla AK, "Association between bleeding events and in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention" 309 : 1022-1029, 2013

15 Sanborn TA, "A multicenter randomized trial comparing a percutaneous collagen hemostasis device with conventional manual compression after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty" 11 (11): 6B-13B, 1999

16 Mack MJ, "5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial" 385 : 2477-2484, 2015