Use of Prospective Radiobrachial Angiography in Transradial Cardiac Catheterization and Intervention.
Aged
Angiography, Digital Subtraction
Cardiac Catheterization
Catheterization, Peripheral
/ adverse effects
Contrast Media
/ administration & dosage
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Predictive Value of Tests
Punctures
Radial Artery
/ diagnostic imaging
Radiation Dosage
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
PCI
Radial angiography
Transradial approach
Journal
Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions
ISSN: 1878-0938
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Revasc Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101238551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
13
04
2019
revised:
17
09
2019
accepted:
02
10
2019
pubmed:
2
12
2019
medline:
26
1
2021
entrez:
2
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study examined the utility of prospective radiobrachial angiography (pRBA) in transradial coronary angiography and intervention as a method for reducing procedural complications. A growing body of evidence has supported the transradial approach (TRA) as superior to the transfemoral approach (TFA) due to advantages such as reduced bleeding and improved outcomes in high-risk patients. However, TRA has a higher failure rate than TFA, and has seen slow rates of adoption among United States operators. This was a retrospective, single center, case-control analysis of coronary angiography procedures, performed by two experienced operators at the University of Chicago Medical Center between October 28, 2015 and July 21, 2017. Operator 1 began using pRBA during the study, whereas Operator 2 used pRBA in all TRA procedures. There were 567 patients stratified into three groups based on operator and pRBA use. Comparisons of procedural outcomes for Operator 1 before and after adoption of pRBA, and of outcomes between Operator 1 and Operator 2 were made. Use of pRBA was associated with reduced overall procedural complication rates (2.5% versus 10.4%, p = 0.004), driven primarily by reflexive radiobrachial angiography (rRBA) after resistance or pain was encountered (8.6% versus 0.0%, p = 0.0001) for Operator 1. A slight reduction in contrast associated with pRBA for Operator 1 was noted, but no difference in procedural time, radiation dose, or additional equipment used across groups was found. No significant difference in adverse procedural outcomes between the pRBA groups of Operator 1 and Operator 2 were observed. In patients with radiobrachial variants in anatomy, use of pRBA was associated with shorter times to cross anatomic lesions, shorter procedure times, reduced use of extra catheters, and less perforations and crossovers compared to patients requiring rRBA. Lack of pRBA was associated with higher procedural complications (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% CI, 1.03-1.13, p = 0.004). pRBA may be a useful tool for mitigating procedural complications, reducing time needed to cross difficult radiobrachial anatomy, and reducing the need to utilize additional equipment in TRA. pRBA may offer operators a tool to improve outcomes and increase adoption of this approach.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
This study examined the utility of prospective radiobrachial angiography (pRBA) in transradial coronary angiography and intervention as a method for reducing procedural complications.
BACKGROUND
A growing body of evidence has supported the transradial approach (TRA) as superior to the transfemoral approach (TFA) due to advantages such as reduced bleeding and improved outcomes in high-risk patients. However, TRA has a higher failure rate than TFA, and has seen slow rates of adoption among United States operators.
METHODS
This was a retrospective, single center, case-control analysis of coronary angiography procedures, performed by two experienced operators at the University of Chicago Medical Center between October 28, 2015 and July 21, 2017. Operator 1 began using pRBA during the study, whereas Operator 2 used pRBA in all TRA procedures. There were 567 patients stratified into three groups based on operator and pRBA use. Comparisons of procedural outcomes for Operator 1 before and after adoption of pRBA, and of outcomes between Operator 1 and Operator 2 were made.
RESULTS
Use of pRBA was associated with reduced overall procedural complication rates (2.5% versus 10.4%, p = 0.004), driven primarily by reflexive radiobrachial angiography (rRBA) after resistance or pain was encountered (8.6% versus 0.0%, p = 0.0001) for Operator 1. A slight reduction in contrast associated with pRBA for Operator 1 was noted, but no difference in procedural time, radiation dose, or additional equipment used across groups was found. No significant difference in adverse procedural outcomes between the pRBA groups of Operator 1 and Operator 2 were observed. In patients with radiobrachial variants in anatomy, use of pRBA was associated with shorter times to cross anatomic lesions, shorter procedure times, reduced use of extra catheters, and less perforations and crossovers compared to patients requiring rRBA. Lack of pRBA was associated with higher procedural complications (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% CI, 1.03-1.13, p = 0.004).
CONCLUSION
pRBA may be a useful tool for mitigating procedural complications, reducing time needed to cross difficult radiobrachial anatomy, and reducing the need to utilize additional equipment in TRA. pRBA may offer operators a tool to improve outcomes and increase adoption of this approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31786141
pii: S1553-8389(19)30654-2
doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2019.10.005
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
797-803Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.