Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

21 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

The learning curve of the distal radial access for coronary intervention.

ABSTRACT: Recently, coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via the distal radial access (DRA), are gaining attention owing to fewer complications. Despite the advantages of the DRA, there is difficulty to initiate this new vascular approach. The data from 1000 patients who underwent CAG and PCI via the DRA by a single experienced radial operator were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was the success rate of the DRA per 100 cases. Moreover, the predictors of the failed DRA were analyzed. Overall, 952 (95.2%) of the total 1,000 patients underwent a successful DRA. After experiencing 200 cases, the DRA success rate was well maintained at > 94%, and there was no difference in success rate per 100 cases (P_trend = 0.216). The predictors of failure were female sex [odds ratio (OR) 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-3.39, P = 0.049] and systolic blood pressure (SBP) of < 120 mmHg (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.04-3.36, P = 0.036). For achieving a stable DRA with the success rate of > 94%, 200 procedures would be needed. Moreover, this new approach could fail in women and patients with low SBP.Trial registration: https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/index/index.do (Unique identifier: KCT0005349).

SUBMITTER: Roh JW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8225842 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

A Randomized Comparison of Radial Artery Intimal Hyperplasia Following Distal Versus Proximal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography: PRESERVE RADIAL.

Project description:BackgroundDistal transradial access (dTRA) is an alternative to conventional forearm transradial access (fTRA) for coronary angiography (CAG). Differences in healing of the radial artery (RA) in the forearm have not been evaluated between these 2 access strategies. We sought to compare the mean difference in forearm RA intimal-medial thickening (IMT) in patients randomized to dTRA versus fTRA.Methods and resultsIn this single-center randomized clinical trial, 64 patients undergoing nonemergent CAG were randomized (1:1) to dTRA versus fTRA. Ultra-high-resolution (55-MHz) vascular ultrasound of the forearm and distal RA was performed pre-CAG and at 90 days. The primary end point was the mean change in forearm RA IMT. Secondary end points included procedural characteristics, vascular injury, RA occlusion, and ipsilateral hand pain and function. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, mean forearm RA IMT, and procedural specifics were similar between the dTRA and fTRA cohorts. There was no difference in mean change in forearm RA IMT between the 2 cohorts (0.07 versus 0.07 mm; P=0.37). No RA occlusions or signs of major vascular injury were observed at 90 days. Ipsilateral hand pain and function (Borg pain scale score: 12 versus 11; P=0.24; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulders, and Hand scale score: 6 versus 8; P=0.46) were comparable.ConclusionsFollowing CAG, dTRA was associated with no differences in mean change of forearm RA IMT, hand pain, and function versus fTRA for CAG. Further investigation is warranted to elucidate mechanisms and predictors of RA healing and identify effective strategies to preserving RA integrity for repeated procedures.RegistrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04801901.

| S-EPMC11010068 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of distal radial access versus standard transradial access in patients with smaller diameter radial Arteries(The distal radial versus transradial access in small transradial ArteriesStudy: D.A.T.A - S.T.A.R study).

Project description:AimsTo evaluate safety and efficacy of distal right radial access (DRRA) compared to right radial access (RRA), for coronary procedures, in patients with smaller diameter radial arteries (SDRA) (radial artery diameter (RAD) < 2.1 mm).Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective analysis of safety and efficacy of DRRA Vs. RRA in patients undergoing coronary procedures at our cardiac catheterization laboratories over a 10- month period between September 2017 and June, 2018 (first 5 calendar months with RRA-first; next 5 calendar months with DRRA-first). All patients underwent pre-procedure ultrasound of arm arteries. All patients had RAD<2.1 mm (mean RAD 1.63 ± 0.27 mm; RAD≤1.6 mm in 73.5%). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Primary end-point of puncture success was significantly lower in DRRA vs RRA group [79.5% vs 98.5%, p < 0.0001]. Puncture success was also lower in the subgroup of patients with RAD <1.6 mm Vs. ≥ 1.6 mm in the DRRA group (p < 0.0001). The secondary end-point of puncture time was significantly higher (2.1 ± 1.4 min vs. 1.0 ± 0.45 min, p < 0.00001) in the DRRA Vs. RRA group. The occurrence of vascular access site complications (including access site hematomas), radial artery occlusion (RAO) and distal RAO at day 1 and day 30 were similar between RRA and DRRA groups.Non-vascular access-site complication was seen only in the DRRA group.ConclusionDRRA is a safe and effective access for coronary procedures; though technically challenging in patients with SDRA (RAD<2.1 mm; mean RAD 1.63 ± 0.27 mm), with lower puncture success and higher puncture time compared to RRA.

| S-EPMC7961259 | biostudies-literature

Successful coronary angiography via distal radial access in an 82-year-old male patient with polydactyly.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10790034 | biostudies-literature

Association Between Radial Versus Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Long-Term Mortality.

Project description:Background Percutaneous coronary intervention with radial arterial access has been associated with fewer occurrences of major bleeding. However, published data on the long-term mortality and major adverse cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention with radial or femoral arterial access are inconclusive. Method and Results This was a territory-wide retrospective cohort study including 26 022 patients who underwent first-ever percutaneous coronary intervention between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2017 in Hong Kong. Among the 14 614 patients matched by propensity score (7307 patients in each group), 558 (7.6%) and 787 (10.8%) patients died during the observation period in the radial group and femoral group, respectively, resulting in annualized all-cause mortality rates of 2.69% and 3.87%, respectively. The radial group had a lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with the femoral group up to 3 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78; P<0.001). Radial access was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.83, P<0.001), myocardial infarction after hospital discharge (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87, P<0.001), and unplanned revascularization (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85, P<0.001). The risks of stroke were similar across the 2 groups (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.82-1.13, P=0.655). Conclusions Radial access was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality at 3 years compared with femoral access. Radial access was associated with reduced risks of myocardial infarction and unplanned revascularization, but not stroke. The benefits were sustained beyond the early postoperative period.

| S-EPMC8475672 | biostudies-literature

Feasibility and Safety of the Left Distal Radial Approach in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Bifurcation Lesions.

Project description:Recently, the left distal radial approach (DRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to be a feasible option, but there are limited data regarding the feasibility of performing bifurcation PCI via the left DRA. Therefore, this study aimed to describe our experience with the contemporary left DRA to perform PCI of bifurcation lesions. Between December 2017 and December 2019, we identified 106 patients treated with bifurcation PCI via the left DRA. We evaluated the success rate of PCI, access-site complications including major bleeding requiring surgery or transfusion, hematoma, distal and forearm radial artery occlusion, and 30-day mortality. Eleven patients (10.4%) treated with left main bifurcation and true bifurcations accounted for 39.6% of cases, with the left anterior descending artery/diagonal branch being the most frequent bifurcation site (57.5%, 61/106). PCI was performed using a 6-French guiding catheter in 101 (95.3%) cases. Successful PCI for bifurcation lesions via the left DRA was achieved in all 106 patients without access-site cross-over. There was no major bleeding, distal and forearm radial artery occlusion, forearm hematoma, or mortality at 30 days. The left DRA is a safe and feasible alternative access site for bifurcation PCI in selected patients.

| S-EPMC8161320 | biostudies-literature

Percutaneous angioplasty at previous radial puncture site via distal radial access of anatomical snuffbox.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8084399 | biostudies-literature

Systematic review and cost-benefit analysis of radial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention.

Project description:Radial artery access for coronary angiography and interventions has been promoted for reducing hemostasis time and vascular complications compared with femoral access, yet it can take longer to perform and is not always successful, leading to concerns about its cost. We report a cost-benefit analysis of radial catheterization based on results from a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials.The systematic review added 5 additional randomized controlled trials to a prior review, for a total of 14 studies. Meta-analyses, following Cochrane procedures, suggested that radial catheterization significantly increased catheterization failure (OR, 4.92; 95% CI, 2.69-8.98), but reduced major complications (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.24-0.42), major bleeding (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57), and hematoma (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.48) compared with femoral catheterization. It added approximately 1.4 minutes to procedure time (95% CI, -0.22 to 2.97) and reduced hemostasis time by approximately 13 minutes (95% CI, -2.30 to -23.90). There were no differences in procedure success rates or major adverse cardiovascular events. A stochastic simulation model of per-case costs took into account procedure and hemostasis time, costs of repeating the catheterization at the alternate site if the first catheterization failed, and the inpatient hospital costs associated with complications from the procedure. Using base-case estimates based on our meta-analysis results, we found the radial approach cost $275 (95% CI, -$374 to -$183) less per patient from the hospital perspective. Radial catheterization was favored over femoral catheterization under all conditions tested.Radial catheterization was favored over femoral catheterization in our cost-benefit analysis.

| S-EPMC3430729 | biostudies-literature

Feasibility and Safety of Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention via Distal Transradial Access.

Project description:Aims: The current study aims to verify the feasibility and safety of chronic total occlusion (CTO)-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via the distal transradial access (dTRA). Methods: Between April 2017 and December 2019, 298 patients who underwent CTO PCI via dTRA were enrolled in this study. The baseline demographic and procedural characteristics were listed and compared between groups. The incidences of access-site vascular complications and procedural complications and mortality were recorded. Results: The mean J-CTO (Japanese chronic total occlusion) score was 2.6 ± 0.9 points. The mean access time was 4.6 ± 2.9 min, and the mean procedure time was 115.9 ± 55.6 min. Left radial snuffbox access was performed successfully in 286 patients (96.5%), and right radial snuffbox access was performed successfully in 133 patients (97.7%). Bilateral radial snuffbox access was performed in 107 patients (35.9%). 400 dTRA (95.5%) received glidesheath for CTO intervention. Two patients (0.7%) developed severe access-site vascular complications. None of the patients experienced severe radial artery spasm and only 2 patients (0.5%) developed radial artery occlusion during the follow-up period. The overall procedural success rate was 93.5%. The procedural success rate was 96.5% in patients with antegrade approach and 87.7% in patients with retrograde approach. Conclusions: It is both safe and feasible to use dTRA plus Glidesheath for complex CTO intervention. The incidences of procedure-related complications and severe access-site vascular complications, and distal radial artery occlusion were low.

| S-EPMC8141614 | biostudies-literature

Comparison between the Right and Left Distal Radial Access for Patients Undergoing Coronary Procedures: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Project description:IntroductionDistal radial access for coronary procedures decreases hemostasis time, prevents radial occlusion, and improves patient comfort compared to conventional transradial access. Initially described for left distal radial access (lDRA), the right distal radial access (rDRA) is feasible. However, there are no comparative studies to date. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the access site on vascular access and procedural performance.MethodsFrom August 2020 to October 2021, coronary procedures performed through distal radial access were prospectively recorded. After propensity score matching, the rDRA and lDRA were compared. The primary endpoint was the proportion of approach success. The secondary endpoints included access time, coronary procedural success, radial spasm, exposition to ionizing radiation, patient comfort, and vascular access-related complications.ResultsFrom a total of 385 procedures in 382 patients, after a propensity score matching, 182 procedures were compared between the rDRA and lDRA. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Compared to the lDRA, the rDRA presented similar approach success (96.7% vs. 96.7%, p=1.0), less access time (39 (25-60) sec vs. 50 (29-90) sec, p=0.018), comparable coronary procedural success after sheath placement (100% vs. 100%, p=1.000), and not statistically significant radial spasm (2.19% vs. 6.59%, p=0.148). No differences in dose-area product (32 (20-56.2) Gy.m2 vs. 32.3 (19.4-46.3) Gy.m2; p=0.472) and fluoroscopy time (4.4 (2.5-9.1) min vs. 4.3 (2.4-7.5) min, p=0.251) were detected between the groups. No vascular access-related complications were observed in any group.ConclusionsThe rDRA, compared to the lDRA, had the same proportion of approach success and procedural performance, with a slight reduction in access time for patients undergoing coronary procedures.

| S-EPMC9334045 | biostudies-literature

Distal Radial Artery Access in comparison to Forearm Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization: A Randomized Controlled Trial (DARFORA Trial).

Project description:BackgroundIn our clinical practice, conventional radial access has been employed routinely for coronary procedures. The distal radial artery (DRA) access site has recently emerged as a novel technique in cardiac procedures.ObjectivesThis study compares distal radial access to standard forearm radial access (FRA) in terms of feasibility, outcomes, and complications.MethodThis prospective, randomized trial was conducted at a single center. The patients were chosen from An-Najah National University Hospital's catheterization laboratory between December 2019 and November 2020. A total of 209 patients were randomized into two groups: DRA group (n = 104) and FRA group (n = 105).ResultsAccess was successful in 98% of patients in both the groups. The DRA group had a longer puncture duration and a higher number of attempts (duration: 56.6 ± 61.1 s DRA vs. 20.0 ± 18.4 s FRA, p < 0.001, attempts: 1.9 ± 1.3 DRA vs. 1.2 ± 0.60 FRA, p < 0.001). Puncture-associated pain was greater in the DRA group (4 ± 2.2 DRA vs. 3 ± 2.1 FRA, p=0.001). There were two radial artery occlusions in the FRA group and none in the DRA group (p=0.139). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 26% of the DRA group and 37.1% of the FRA group. The DRA group had significantly shorter procedure times (p=0.006), fluoroscopy times (p=0.002), and hemostasis times (p=0.002). Over time, the learning curve demonstrated improved puncture duration and a decrease in the number of puncture attempts.ConclusionsDRA is a safe and practical alternative to FRA for coronary angiography and intervention. The overtime learning curve is expected to improve puncture-related outcomes.

| S-EPMC9307355 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data