Dataset Information

Comparison of 4-French versus 5-French sheaths for diagnostic coronary angiography via the snuffbox approach.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although a shorter hemostasis duration would be expected when compared with the conventional radial approach as the diameter of the distal radial artery is smaller than that of the conventional radial artery, the optimal duration of hemostasis in diagnostic coronary angiography (CAG) via the distal radial approach, termed the snuffbox approach, has not been well investigated.

Methods

Data from 171 patients were retrospectively collected (55 and 116 patients in the 4-French [Fr] and 5-Fr sheath groups, respectively). The patients had suspected myocardial ischemia and were undergoing diagnostic CAG via the snuffbox approach at a single center between January 2019 and August 2019.

Results

The mean age of the study population was 67.6 ± 11.0 years, and 69% were male. The left snuffbox approach was performed in 146 (85.4%) patients. The mean snuffbox puncture time, defined as the time interval between local anesthesia and sheath cannulation, was 145.1 ± 120.8 s. The hemostasis duration was significantly shorter in the 4-Fr sheath group than in the 5-Fr sheath group (70 [62-90] vs. 120 [120-130] min; p < 0.001). There were local hematomas, defined as ≤ 5 cm in diameter, at the puncture site in 8 (4.7%) patients. Moreover, there were no conventional and distal radial artery occlusions, assessed by manual pulse, after hemostasis in the study population during hospitalization.

Conclusions

Successful hemostasis was obtained within 2 h for diagnostic CAG via the snuffbox approach using the 4-Fr or 5-Fr sheaths.

SUBMITTER: Roh JW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8277005 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both).Search methodsWe searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author.Main resultsWe identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence).Authors' conclusionsTransradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).

Project description:ObjectiveThe previous meta-analysis has assessed that distal transradial access (dTRA) in anatomical snuffbox is safe and effective for coronary angiography and intervention and can reduce radial artery occlusion. However, since the publication of the previous meta-analysis, several observational studies have been added, so we performed an updated meta-analysis to include more eligible studies to compare distal transradial access in anatomical snuffbox with conventional transradial access (cTRA).MethodPubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies from the literature published until 5 January 2021 to evaluate catheterization/puncture failure, hematoma, radial artery spasm, radial artery occlusion (RAO), access time, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose area product, total procedure time, and hemostatic device removal time. The pooled odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively.ResultsA total of 9,054 patients from 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis, and we found no significant difference in catheterization/puncture failure (OR = 1.94, 95CI [0.97, 3.86], P=0.06), hematoma (OR = 0.97, 95CI [0.55, 1.73], P=0.926), radial artery spasm (OR = 0.76, 95CI [0.43, 1.36], P=0.354), total procedure time (SMD = 0.23, 95CI [-0.21, 0.68], P=0.308), or radiation dose area product (WMD = 216.88 Gy/cm2, 95CI [-126.24, 560.00], P=0.215), but dTRA had a lower incidence of RAO (OR = 0.39, 95CI [0.23, 0.66], P < 0.001), shorter hemostatic device removal time (WMD = -66.62 min, 95CI [-76.68, -56.56], P < 0.001), longer access time (SMD = 0.32, 95CI [0.08, 0.56], P=0.008), and longer fluoroscopy time (SMD = 0.16, 95CI [-0.00, 0.33], P=0.05) than cTRA.ConclusionCompared with the cTRA, the dTRA has a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion and shorter hemostatic device removal time, which is worthy of further evaluation in clinical practice.