Kristian Rivera, Diego Fernández-Rodríguez, Juan Casanova-Sandoval, Ignacio Barriuso, Marta Zielonka, Nuria Pueyo-Balsells, Immaculada Calaf Valls, Fernando Worner
{"title":"Comparison between the Right and Left Distal Radial Access for Patients Undergoing Coronary Procedures: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis","authors":"Kristian Rivera, Diego Fernández-Rodríguez, Juan Casanova-Sandoval, Ignacio Barriuso, Marta Zielonka, Nuria Pueyo-Balsells, Immaculada Calaf Valls, Fernando Worner","doi":"10.1155/2022/7932114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Introduction</i>. Distal radial access for coronary procedures decreases hemostasis time, prevents radial occlusion, and improves patient comfort compared to conventional transradial access. Initially described for left distal radial access (lDRA), the right distal radial access (rDRA) is feasible. However, there are no comparative studies to date. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the access site on vascular access and procedural performance. <i>Methods</i>. From August 2020 to October 2021, coronary procedures performed through distal radial access were prospectively recorded. After propensity score matching, the rDRA and lDRA were compared. The primary endpoint was the proportion of approach success. The secondary endpoints included access time, coronary procedural success, radial spasm, exposition to ionizing radiation, patient comfort, and vascular access-related complications. <i>Results</i>. From a total of 385 procedures in 382 patients, after a propensity score matching, 182 procedures were compared between the rDRA and lDRA. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Compared to the lDRA, the rDRA presented similar approach success (96.7% vs. 96.7%, <i>p</i> = 1.0), less access time (39 (25–60) sec vs. 50 (29–90) sec, <i>p</i> = 0.018), comparable coronary procedural success after sheath placement (100% vs. 100%, <i>p</i> = 1.000), and not statistically significant radial spasm (2.19% vs. 6.59%, <i>p</i> = 0.148). No differences in dose-area product (32 (20–56.2) Gy.m2 vs. 32.3 (19.4–46.3) Gy.m2; <i>p</i> = 0.472) and fluoroscopy time (4.4 (2.5–9.1) min vs. 4.3 (2.4–7.5) min, <i>p</i> = 0.251) were detected between the groups. No vascular access-related complications were observed in any group. <i>Conclusions</i>. The rDRA, compared to the lDRA, had the same proportion of approach success and procedural performance, with a slight reduction in access time for patients undergoing coronary procedures.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16329,"journal":{"name":"Journal of interventional cardiology","volume":"2022 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9334045/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of interventional cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2022/7932114","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction. Distal radial access for coronary procedures decreases hemostasis time, prevents radial occlusion, and improves patient comfort compared to conventional transradial access. Initially described for left distal radial access (lDRA), the right distal radial access (rDRA) is feasible. However, there are no comparative studies to date. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the access site on vascular access and procedural performance. Methods. From August 2020 to October 2021, coronary procedures performed through distal radial access were prospectively recorded. After propensity score matching, the rDRA and lDRA were compared. The primary endpoint was the proportion of approach success. The secondary endpoints included access time, coronary procedural success, radial spasm, exposition to ionizing radiation, patient comfort, and vascular access-related complications. Results. From a total of 385 procedures in 382 patients, after a propensity score matching, 182 procedures were compared between the rDRA and lDRA. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Compared to the lDRA, the rDRA presented similar approach success (96.7% vs. 96.7%, p = 1.0), less access time (39 (25–60) sec vs. 50 (29–90) sec, p = 0.018), comparable coronary procedural success after sheath placement (100% vs. 100%, p = 1.000), and not statistically significant radial spasm (2.19% vs. 6.59%, p = 0.148). No differences in dose-area product (32 (20–56.2) Gy.m2 vs. 32.3 (19.4–46.3) Gy.m2; p = 0.472) and fluoroscopy time (4.4 (2.5–9.1) min vs. 4.3 (2.4–7.5) min, p = 0.251) were detected between the groups. No vascular access-related complications were observed in any group. Conclusions. The rDRA, compared to the lDRA, had the same proportion of approach success and procedural performance, with a slight reduction in access time for patients undergoing coronary procedures.
与传统的经桡动脉通路相比,桡动脉远端通路用于冠状动脉手术减少了止血时间,防止了桡动脉闭塞,提高了患者的舒适度。最初描述了左桡骨远端通路(lDRA),右桡骨远端通路(rDRA)是可行的。然而,到目前为止还没有比较研究。本研究旨在评估通路位置对血管通路和手术性能的影响。方法:从2020年8月至2021年10月,前瞻性记录通过桡动脉远端通道进行的冠状动脉手术。倾向得分匹配后,比较rDRA和lDRA。主要终点为入路成功率。次要终点包括通路时间、冠状动脉手术成功、桡动脉痉挛、电离辐射暴露、患者舒适度和血管通路相关并发症。结果:从382例患者的385例手术中,经过倾向评分匹配,182例手术在rDRA和lDRA之间进行了比较。两组之间的基线特征没有差异。与lDRA相比,rDRA的入路成功率相似(96.7% vs. 96.7%, p=1.0),入路时间更短(39(25-60)秒vs. 50(29-90)秒,p=0.018),置入鞘后冠状动脉手术成功率相似(100% vs. 100%, p=1.000),桡动脉痉挛无统计学意义(2.19% vs. 6.59%, p=0.148)。剂量面积积无差异(32 (20-56.2)Gy)。m2 vs. 32.3 (19.4-46.3) Gy.m2;P =0.472)、透视时间(4.4 (2.5 ~ 9.1)min vs. 4.3 (2.4 ~ 7.5) min, P =0.251)。两组均未见血管通路相关并发症。结论:与lDRA相比,rDRA有相同比例的入路成功和手术表现,患者接受冠状动脉手术的时间略有减少。
期刊介绍:
Journal of Interventional Cardiology is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for cardiologists determined to stay current in the diagnosis, investigation, and management of patients with cardiovascular disease and its associated complications. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies focusing on new procedures and techniques in all major subject areas in the field, including:
Acute coronary syndrome
Coronary disease
Congenital heart diseases
Myocardial infarction
Peripheral arterial disease
Valvular heart disease
Cardiac hemodynamics and physiology
Haemostasis and thrombosis