Korean Circulation Journal

The Korean Society of Cardiology (대한심장학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Current Practice of Transradial Coronary Angiography and Intervention: Results from the Korean Transradial Intervention Prospective Registry

  • Received : 2015.02.14
  • Accepted : 2015.06.09
  • Published : 2015.11.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Although increasing evidence has indicated that radial access is a beneficial technique, few studies have focused on Korean subjects. The aim of this study was to evaluate current practice of coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using radial access in South Korea. Subjects and Methods: A total of 6338 subjects were analyzed from Korean Transradial Intervention prospective registry that was conducted at 20 centers in Korea. After evaluating the initial access, subjects intended for radial access were assessed for their baseline, procedure-related, and complication data. Subjects were categorized into three groups: group of overall subjects (n=5554); group of subjects who underwent PCI (n=1780); and group of subjects who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) (n=167). Results: The rate of radial artery as an initial access and the rate of access site crossover was 87.6% and 4.4%, respectively, in overall subjects. Those rates were 82.4% and 8.1%, respectively, in subjects who underwent PCI, and 60.1% and 4.8%, respectively, in subjects who underwent PPCI. For subjects who underwent CAG, a 6-F introducer sheath and a 5-F angiographic catheter was the most commonly used. During PCI, a 6-F introducer sheath (90.6%) and a 6-F guiding catheter were standardly used. Conclusion: The large prospective registry allowed us to present the current practice of CAG and PCI using radial access. These data provides evidence to achieve consensus on radial access in CAG and PCI in the Korean population.

Keywords

References

  1. Mamas MA, Ratib K, Routledge H, et al. Influence of access site selection on PCI-related adverse events in patients with STEMI: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart 2012;98:303-11. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300558
  2. Authors/Task Force members, Windecker S, Kolh P, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 2014;35:2541-619. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu278
  3. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:e44-122.
  4. Ball WT, Sharieff W, Jolly SS, et al. Characterization of operator learning curve for transradial coronary interventions. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:336-41. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.110.960864
  5. Mehran R, Rao SV, Bhatt DL, et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation 2011;123:2736-47. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.009449
  6. Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai GG, de Benedictis ML, et al. Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures; systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:349-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.04.034
  7. Pristipino C, Pelliccia F, Granatelli A, et al. Comparison of accessrelated bleeding complications in women versus men undergoing percutaneous coronary catheterization using the radial versus femoral artery. Am J Cardiol 2007;99:1216-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.12.038
  8. Vink MA, Amoroso G, Dirksen MT, et al. Routine use of the transradial approach in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: procedural aspects and outcomes in 2209 patients treated in a single highvolume centre. Heart 2011;97:1938-42. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300524
  9. Burzotta F, Trani C, Mazzari MA, et al. Vascular complications and access crossover in 10,676 transradial percutaneous coronary procedures. Am Heart J 2012;163:230-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2011.10.019
  10. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 2011;377:1409-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60404-2
  11. Pristipino C, Roncella A, Trani C, et al. Identifying factors that predict the choice and success rate of radial artery catheterisation in contemporary real world cardiology practice: a sub-analysis of the PREVAIL study data. EuroIntervention 2010;6:240-6. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV6I2A38
  12. Dehghani P, Mohammad A, Bajaj R, et al. Mechanism and predictors of failed transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:1057-64.
  13. Saito S, Ikei H, Hosokawa G, Tanaka S. Influence of the ratio between radial artery inner diameter and sheath outer diameter on radial artery flow after transradial coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 1999;46:173-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-726X(199902)46:2<173::AID-CCD12>3.0.CO;2-4
  14. Spaulding C, Lefèvre T, Funck F, et al. Left radial approach for coronary angiography: results of a prospective study. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1996;39:365-70. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0304(199612)39:4<365::AID-CCD8>3.0.CO;2-B
  15. Stella PR, Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, Slagboom T, van der Wieken R. Incidence and outcome of radial artery occlusion following transradial artery coronary angioplasty. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1997;40:156-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0304(199702)40:2<156::AID-CCD7>3.0.CO;2-A
  16. Sanmartin M, Gomez M, Rumoroso JR, et al. Interruption of blood flow during compression and radial artery occlusion after transradial catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;70:185-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.21058
  17. Steffenino G, Fabrizi Mde B, Baralis G, et al. Implementation of radial arterial access for cardiac interventions: a strong case for quality assurance protocols by the nursing staff. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2011;12:116-21. https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0b013e328340392c
  18. Jolly SS, Amlani S, Hamon M, Yusuf S, Mehta SR. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J 2009;157:132-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2008.08.023
  19. Montalescot G, Ongen Z, Guindy R, et al. Predictors of outcome in patients undergoing PCI. Results of the RIVIERA study. Int J Cardiol 2008;129:379-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2007.07.127
  20. Chase AJ, Fretz EB, Warburton WP, et al. Association of the arterial access site at angioplasty with transfusion and mortality: the M.O.R.T.A.L study (Mortality benefit Of Reduced Transfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention via the Arm or Leg). Heart 2008;94:1019-25. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2007.136390
  21. Rao SV, Ou FS, Wang TY, et al. Trends in the prevalence and outcomes of radial and femoral approaches to percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2008;1:379-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2008.05.007
  22. Verheugt FW, Steinhubl SR, Hamon M, et al. Incidence, prognostic impact, and influence of antithrombotic therapy on access and nonaccess site bleeding in percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:191-7.
  23. Karrowni W, Vyas A, Giacomino B, et al. Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6:814-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.04.010
  24. Hamon M, Pristipino C, Di Mario C, et al. Consensus document on the radial approach in percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: position paper by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care** and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology. EuroIntervention 2013;8:1242-51. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV8I11A192
  25. Dahm JB, Vogelgesang D, Hummel A, Staudt A, Völzke H, Felix SB. A randomized trial of 5 vs. 6 French transradial percutaneous coronary interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002;57:172-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.10321
  26. Takeshita S, Asano H, Hata T, et al. Comparison of frequency of radial artery occlusion after 4Fr versus 6Fr transradial coronary intervention (from the Novel Angioplasty USIng Coronary Accessor Trial). Am J Cardiol 2014;113:1986-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.03.040
  27. Mercuri M, Mehta S, Xie C, Valettas N, Velianou JL, Natarajan MK. Radial artery access as a predictor of increased radiation exposure during a diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:347-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2010.11.011
  28. Baklanov DV, Kaltenbach LA, Marso SP, et al. The prevalence and outcomes of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention for STsegment elevation myocardial infarction: analysis from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (2007 to 2011). J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:420-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.10.032

Cited by

  1. Diagnosis and management of acute coronary syndrome vol.60, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2017.60.7.568