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.

Project description:BackgroundEngland and Wales have one of the highest frequencies of autopsy in the world. Implementation of post-mortem CT (PMCT), enhanced with targeted coronary angiography (PMCTA), in adults to avoid invasive autopsy would have cultural, religious, and potential economic benefits. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of PMCTA as a first-line technique in post-mortem investigations.MethodsIn this single-centre (Leicester, UK), prospective, controlled study, we selected cases of natural and non-suspicious unnatural death referred to Her Majesty's (HM) Coroners. We excluded cases younger than 18 years, known to have had a transmittable disease, or who weighed more than 125 kg. Each case was assessed by PMCTA, followed by autopsy. Pathologists were masked to the PMCTA findings, unless a potential risk was shown. The primary endpoint was the accuracy of the cause of death diagnosis from PMCTA against a gold standard of autopsy findings, modified by PMCTA findings only if additional substantially incontrovertible findings were identified.FindingsBetween Jan 20, 2010, and Sept 13, 2012, we selected 241 cases, for which PMCTA was successful in 204 (85%). Seven cases were excluded from the analysis because of procedural unmasking or no autopsy data, as were 24 cases with a clear diagnosis of traumatic death before investigation; 210 cases were included. In 40 (19%) cases, predictable toxicology or histology testing accessible by PMCT informed the result. PMCTA provided a cause of death in 193 (92%) cases. A major discrepancy with the gold standard was noted in 12 (6%) cases identified by PMCTA, and in nine (5%) cases identified by autopsy (because of specific findings on PMCTA). The frequency of autopsy and PMCTA discrepancies were not significantly different (p=0·65 for major discrepancies and p=0·21 for minor discrepancies). Cause of death given by PMCTA did not overlook clinically significant trauma, occupational lung disease, or reportable disease, and did not significantly affect the overall population data for cause of death (p≥0·31). PMCTA was better at identifying trauma and haemorrhage (p=0·008), whereas autopsy was better at identifying pulmonary thromboembolism (p=0·004).InterpretationFor most sudden natural adult deaths investigated by HM Coroners, PMCTA could be used to avoid invasive autopsy. The gold standard of post-mortem investigations should include both PMCT and invasive autopsy.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.