Vascular access and closure in coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention

Nature Reviews Cardiology

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 27-40

  Byrne, Robert A ^a   Cassese, Salvatore ^a   Linhardt, Maryam ^a   Kastrati, Adnan ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTICOAGULANT AGENT; ANTITHROMBOCYTIC AGENT; SEALANT; VASODILATOR AGENT;

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTERIOTOMY; ARTERY CATHETERIZATION; ARTERY WALL; CARDIOLOGIST; CATHETER COMPLICATION; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMORBIDITY; COMPRESSION THERAPY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS SURGERY; DEEP FEMORAL ARTERY; DEVICES; FALSE ANEURYSM; FEMORAL ARTERY; FEMORAL VEIN; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEART INFARCTION; HEMATOMA; HEMOSTASIS; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; ILIAC ARTERY; INCIDENCE; INFERIOR EPIGASTRIC ARTERY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNAL MAMMARY ARTERY; MEDIAN NERVE COMPRESSION; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NERVE COMPRESSION; OUTPATIENT CARE; PATIENT SAFETY; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RADIAL ARTERY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RETROPERITONEAL HEMORRHAGE; REVASCULARIZATION; REVIEW; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VASCULAR ACCESS; VASCULAR CLOSURE DEVICE;

CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION; CARDIAC CATHETERS; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMORAL ARTERY; HEMORRHAGE; HEMOSTATIC TECHNIQUES; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PUNCTURES; RADIAL ARTERY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84871728676     PISSN: 17595002     EISSN: 17595010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrcardio.2012.160     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. Monagan, D. & Williams, D. O. A Journey into the Heart: A Tale of Pioneering Doctors and Their Race to Transform Cardiovascular Medicine (Gotham Books, New York, 2007).
2. Holmes, D. R. Jr & Williams, D. O. Catheter-based treatment of coronary artery disease: past, present and future. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 1, 60-73 (2008).
3. Rodés-Cabau, J. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: current and future approaches. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 9, 15-29 (2012).
4. Waksman, R. et al. Predictors of groin complications after balloon and new-device coronary intervention. Am. J. Cardiol. 75, 886-889 (1995).
5. Dauerman, H. L., Rao, S. V., Resnic, F. S. & Applegate, R. J. Bleeding avoidance strategies. Consensus and controversy. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 58, 1-10 (2011).
6. Sones, F. M. Jr & Shirey, E. K. Cine coronary arteriography. Mod. Concepts Cardiovasc. Dis. 31, 735-738 (1962).
7. Radner, S. Thoracal aortography by catheterization from the radial artery; preliminary report of a new technique. Acta Radiol. 29, 178-180 (1948).
8. Seldinger, S. I. Catheter replacement of the needle in percutaneous arteriography; a new technique. Acta Radiol. 39, 368-376 (1953).
9. Dotter, C. T. & Judkins, M. P. Transluminal treatment of arteriosclerotic obstruction. Description of a new technic and a preliminary report of its application. Circulation 30, 654-670 (1964).
10. Campeau, L. Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Diagn. 16, 3-7 (1989). (Pubitemid 19033502)
11. Kiemeneij, F. & Laarman, G. J. Percutaneous transradial artery approach for coronary stent implantation. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Diagn. 30, 173-178 (1993). (Pubitemid 23292091)
12. Schwartz, B. G. et al. Review of vascular closure devices. J. Invasive Cardiol. 22, 599-607 (2010).
13. Koreny, M., Riedmüller, E., Nikfardjam, M., Siostrzonek, P. & Müllner, M. Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 291, 350-357 (2004). (Pubitemid 38101608)
14. Nikolsky, E. et al. Vascular complications associated with arteriotomy closure devices in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 44, 1200-1209 (2004). (Pubitemid 39208874)
15. Vaitkus, P. T. A meta-analysis of percutaneous vascular closure devices after diagnostic catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. J. Invasive Cardiol. 16, 243-246 (2004). (Pubitemid 38637895)
16. Biancari, F. et al. Meta-analysis of randomized trials on the efficacy of vascular closure devices after diagnostic angiography and angioplasty. Am. Heart J. 159, 518-531 (2010).
17. Das, R., Ahmed, K., Athanasiou, T., Morgan, R. A. & Belli, A. M. Arterial closure devices versus manual compression for femoral haemostasis in interventional radiological procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 34, 723-738 (2011).
18. Dauerman, H. L., Applegate, R. J. & Cohen, D. J. Vascular closure devices: the second decade. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 50, 1617-1626 (2007). (Pubitemid 47562669)
19. Subherwal, S. et al. Temporal trends in and factors associated with bleeding complications among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data CathPCI Registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 59, 1861-1869 (2012).
20. Ho, P. M., Peterson, P. N. & Masoudi, F. A. Evaluating the evidence: is there a rigid hierarchy? Circulation 118, 1675-1684 (2008).
21. Dangas, G. et al. Vascular complications after percutaneous coronary interventions following hemostasis with manual compression versus arteriotomy closure devices. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 38, 638-641 (2001). (Pubitemid 32835728)
22. Tavris, D., Gross, T., Gallauresi, B. & Kessler, L. Arteriotomy closure devices\the FDA perspective. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 38, 642-644 (2001). (Pubitemid 32835729)
23. Tavris, D. R. et al. Risk of local adverse events following cardiac catheterization by hemostasis device use and gender. J. Invasive Cardiol. 16, 459-464 (2004). (Pubitemid 39244890)
24. Tavris, D. R. et al. Risk of local adverse events following cardiac catheterization by hemostasis device use\phase II. J. Invasive Cardiol. 17, 644-650 (2005).
25. Marso, S. P. et al. Association between use of bleeding avoidance strategies and risk of periprocedural bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA 303, 2156-2164 (2010).
26. Resnic, F. S. et al. Vascular closure devices and the risk of vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors. Am. J. Cardiol. 88, 493-496 (2001). (Pubitemid 32778493)
27. Cura, F. A. et al. Safety of femoral closure devices after percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet blockade. Am. J. Cardiol. 86, 780-782 A9 (2000).
28. Stone, G. W. et al. Bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a subgroup analysis from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategy (ACUITY) trial. Lancet 369, 907-919 (2007). (Pubitemid 46400858)
29. Sanborn, T. A. et al. Impact of femoral vascular closure devices and antithrombotic therapy on access site bleeding in acute coronary syndromes: The Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 3, 57-62 (2010).
30. Resnic, F. S., Arora, N., Matheny, M. & Reynolds, M. R. A cost-minimization analysis of the angio-seal vascular closure device following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am. J. Cardiol. 99, 766-770 (2007). (Pubitemid 46365595)
31. Heyde, G. S. et al. Randomized trial comparing same-day discharge with overnight hospital stay after percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the Elective PCI in Outpatient Study (EPOS). Circulation 115, 2299-2306 (2007). (Pubitemid 46685898)
32. Brasselet, C. et al. Comparison of operator radiation exposure with optimized radiation protection devices during coronary angiograms and ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions by radial and femoral routes. Eur. Heart J. 29, 63-70 (2008).
33. Bertrand, O. F. et al. Transradial approach for coronary angiography and interventions: results of the first international transradial practice survey. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 3, 1022-1031 (2010).
34. Caputo, R. P. et al. Transradial arterial access for coronary and peripheral procedures: executive summary by the Transradial Committee of the SCAI. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 78, 823-839 (2011).
35. Rao, S. V. 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. 1, 379-386 (2008).
36. Morrison, D. A. Disruptive technology or evolutionary innovation? Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 79, 595-596 (2012).
37. Di Mario, C. & Viceconte, N. Radial angioplasty: worthy RIVAL, not undisputed winner. Lancet 377, 1381-1383 (2011).
38. Kern, M. J. Cardiac catheterization on the road less traveled: navigating the radial versus femoral debate. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2, 1055-1056 (2009).
39. Meier, P., Windecker, S. & Lansky, A. J. The Authors' reply. Heart 98, 1392-1393 (2012).
40. Rao, S. V., Bernat, I. & Bertrand, O. F. Remaining challenges and opportunities for improvement in percutaneous transradial coronary procedures. Eur. Heart J. 33, 2521-2526 (2012).
41. Ndrepepa, G. et al. Periprocedural bleeding and 1-year outcome after percutaneous coronary interventions: appropriateness of including bleeding as a component of a quadruple end point. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 51, 690-697 (2008). (Pubitemid 351221218)
42. Lindsey, J. B. et al. Prognostic impact of periprocedural bleeding and myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention in unselected patients: results from the EVENT (evaluation of drug-eluting stents and ischemic events) registry. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2, 1074-1082 (2009).
43. Mehran, R. et al. Impact of bleeding on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention results from a patient-level pooled analysis of the REPLACE-2 (randomized evaluation of PCI linking angiomax to reduced clinical events), ACUITY (acute catheterization and urgent intervention triage strategy), and HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trials. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 4, 654-664 (2011).
44. Slagboom, T., Kiemeneij, F., Laarman, G. J. & van der Wieken, R. Outpatient coronary angioplasty: feasible and safe. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 64, 421-427 (2005). (Pubitemid 40463435)
45. Rinfret, S. et al. Economic impact of same-day home discharge after uncomplicated transradial percutaneous coronary intervention and bolus-only abciximab regimen. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 3, 1011-1019 (2010).
46. Natsuaki, M. et al. Comparison of 3-year clinical outcomes after transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention. Cardiovasc. Interv. Ther. 27, 84-92 (2012).
47. Burzotta, F. et al. Vascular complications and access crossover in 10, 676 transradial percutaneous coronary procedures. Am. Heart J. 163, 230-238 (2012).
48. Kiemeneij, F., Laarman, G. J., Odekerken, D., Slagboom, T. & van der Wieken, R. A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 29, 1269-1275 (1997). (Pubitemid 27201945)
49. Brueck, M. et al. A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2, 1047-1054 (2009).
50. Jolly, S. S. 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 377, 1409-1420 (2011).
51. Agostoni, P. 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. 44, 349-356 (2004). (Pubitemid 38950594)
52. Jolly, S. S., Amlani, S., Hamon, M., Yusuf, S. & Mehta, S. R. 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. 157, 132-140 (2009).
53. Bertrand, O. F. et al. Comparison of transradial and femoral approaches for percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis. Am. Heart J. 163, 632-648 (2012).
54. Mitchell, M. D. et al. Systematic review and cost-benefit analysis of radial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 5, 454-462 (2012).
55. Spaulding, C. et al. Left radial approach for coronary angiography: results of a prospective study. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Diagn. 39, 365-370 (1996). (Pubitemid 26423982)
56. Louvard, Y., Lefevre, T. & Morice, M. C. Radial approach: what about the learning curve? Cathet. Cardiovasc. Diagn. 42, 467-468 (1997).
57. Goldberg, S. L., Renslo, R., Sinow, R. & French, W. J. Learning curve in the use of the radial artery as vascular access in the performance of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Diagn. 44, 147-152 (1998). (Pubitemid 28255911)
58. Ball, W. T. et al. Characterization of operator learning curve for transradial coronary interventions. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 4, 336-341 (2011).
59. Sciahbasi, A. et al. Evaluation of the "learning curve" for left and right radial approach during percutaneous coronary procedures. Am. J. Cardiol. 108, 185-188 (2011).
60. Kawashima, O. et al. Effectiveness of right or left radial approach for coronary angiography. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 61, 333-337 (2004). (Pubitemid 38298268)
61. Fernandez-Portales, J. et al. Right versus left radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Differences observed and the learning curve [Article in Spanish]. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 59, 1071-1074 (2006). (Pubitemid 44823390)
62. Sciahbasi, A. et al. Transradial approach (left vs right) and procedural times during percutaneous coronary procedures: TALENT study. Am. Heart J. 161, 172-179 (2011).
63. Santas, E. et al. The left radial approach in daily practice. A randomized study comparing femoral and right and left radial approaches. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 62, 482-490 (2009).
64. Kanei, Y. et al. Randomized comparison of transradial coronary angiography via right or left radial artery approaches. Am. J. Cardiol. 107, 195-197 (2011).
65. Freixa, X. et al. Right versus left transradial approach for coronary catheterization in octogenarian patients. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 80, 267-272 (2012).
66. Biondi-Zoccai, G. et al. Right versus left radial artery access for coronary procedures: An international collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis including 5 randomized trials and 3210 patients. Int. J. Cardiol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.11.100.
67. Dominici, M. et al. Left radial versus right radial approach for coronary artery catheterization: a prospective comparison. J. Interv. Cardiol. 25, 203-209 (2012).
68. Kuipers, G. et al. Radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary angiograms performed by the radial compared with the femoral route. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 5, 752-757 (2012).
69. Wijns, W. et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur. Heart J. 31, 2501-2555 (2010).
70. Sciahbasi, A. et al. Arterial access-site-related outcomes of patients undergoing invasive coronary procedures for acute coronary syndromes (from the ComPaRison of Early Invasive and Conservative Treatment in Patients With Non-ST-ElevatiOn Acute Coronary Syndromes [PRESTO-ACS] Vascular Substudy). Am. J. Cardiol. 103, 796-800 (2009).
71. Généreux, P. et al. Radial access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: the HORIZONS-AMI trial. EuroIntervention 7, 905-916 (2011).
72. Saito, S. et al. Comparative study on transradial approach vs. transfemoral approach in primary stent implantation for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results of the test for myocardial infarction by prospective unicenter randomization for access sites (TEMPURA) trial. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 59, 26-33 (2003). (Pubitemid 36528794)
73. Cantor, W. J. et al. Radial versus femoral access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention with adjunct glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in acute myocardial infarction\the RADIAL-AMI pilot randomized trial. Am. Heart J. 150, 543-549 (2005). (Pubitemid 41317627)
74. Brasselet, C., Tassan, S., Nazeyrollas, P., Hamon, M. & Metz, D. Randomised comparison of femoral versus radial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention using abciximab in acute myocardial infarction: results of the FARMI trial. Heart 93, 1556-1561 (2007). (Pubitemid 350205549)
75. Yan, Z. X. et al. Safety and feasibility of transradial approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. Chin. Med. J. (Engl.) 121, 782-786 (2008).
76. Chodor, P. et al. RADIal versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (RADIAMI): a prospective, randomized, single-center clinical trial. Cardiol. J. 16, 332-340 (2009).
77. Hou, L., Wei, Y. D., Li, W. M. & Xu, Y. W. Comparative study on transradial versus transfemoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in Chinese patients with acute myocardial infarction. Saudi Med. J. 31, 158-162 (2010).
78. Chodor, P. et al. Radial vs femoral approach with StarClose clip placement for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. RADIAMI II: a prospective, randomised, single centre trial. Kardiol. Pol. 69, 763-771 (2011).
79. Vorobcsuk, A. et al. Transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction. Systematic overview and meta-analysis. Am. Heart J. 158, 814-821 (2009).
80. Mamas, M. A. et al. Influence of access site selection on PCI-related adverse events in patients with STEMI: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart 98, 303-311 (2012).
81. Joyal, D., Bertrand, O. F., Rinfret, S., Shimony, A. & Eisenberg, M. J. Meta-analysis of ten trials on the effectiveness of the radial versus the femoral approach in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am. J. Cardiol. 109, 813-818 (2012).
82. Jang, J. S. et al. Transradial versus transfemoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EuroIntervention 8, 501-510 (2012).
83. Romagnoli, E. et al. Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: The RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.06.017.
84. Arzamendi, D. et al. Effect on bleeding, time to revascularization, and one-year clinical outcomes of the radial approach during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Am. J. Cardiol. 106, 148-154 (2010).
85. Pancholy, S., Patel, T., Sanghvi, K., Thomas, M. & Patel, T. Comparison of door-to-balloon times for primary PCI using transradial versus transfemoral approach. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 75, 991-995 (2010).
86. Johnman, C. et al. Clinical outcomes following radial versus femoral artery access in primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention in Scotland: retrospective cohort study of 4534 patients. Heart 98, 552-557 (2012).
87. Dahm, J. B. et al. A randomized trial of 5 vs. 6 French transradial percutaneous coronary interventions. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 57, 172-176 (2002).
88. Ratib, K., Chong, A. Y., Routledge, H. & Nolan, J. Spasm and occlusion in contemporary radial practice. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 3, 885-886 (2010).
89. Uhlemann, M. et al. The Leipzig prospective vascular ultrasound registry in radial artery catheterization: impact of sheath size on vascular complications. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 5, 36-43 (2012).
90. Zankl, A. R. et al. Radial artery thrombosis following transradial coronary angiography: incidence and rationale for treatment of symptomatic patients with low-molecular-weight heparins. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 99, 841-847 (2010).
91. Barbeau, G. R., Arsenault, F., Dugas, L., Simard, S. & Lariviere, M. M. Evaluation of the ulnopalmar arterial arches with pulse oximetry and plethysmography: comparison with the Allen's test in 1010 patients. Am. Heart J. 147, 489-493 (2004). (Pubitemid 38880871)
92. Pancholy, S., Coppola, J., Patel, T. & Roke-Thomas, M. Prevention of radial artery occlusion-patent hemostasis evaluation trial (PROPHET study): a randomized comparison of traditional versus patency documented hemostasis after transradial catheterization. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 72, 335-340 (2008).
93. Pancholy, S. B. & Patel, T. M. Effect of duration of hemostatic compression on radial artery occlusion after transradial access. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 79, 78-81 (2012).
94. Vassilev, D., Smilkova, D. & Gil, R. Ulnar artery as access site for cardiac catheterization: anatomical considerations. J. Interv. Cardiol. 21, 56-60 (2008). (Pubitemid 351178397)
95. Deftereos, S. et al. Sheathless transulnar versus standard femoral arterial access for percutaneous coronary intervention on bifurcation lesions. Int. J. Cardiol. 149, 398-400 (2011).
96. Aptecar, E. et al. Transulnar versus transradial artery approach for coronary angioplasty: the PCVI-CUBA study. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 67, 711-720 (2006).
97. Aptecar, E. et al. Percutaneous transulnar artery approach for diagnostic and therapeutic coronary intervention. J. Invasive Cardiol. 17, 312-317 (2005). (Pubitemid 41724829)