Advances in trans-radial...
Transcript of Advances in trans-radial...
![Page 1: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Advances in trans-radial
interventions
Sotirios Patsilinakos
Cardiology Department
Konstantopoulio, Athens, Greece
![Page 2: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Impact of Major Bleed and MI after Elective and Urgent PCI
Stone GW. J Inv Cardiol 2004;16(suppl G):12–17.
Time from Randomization in Days
Cu
mu
lative
% M
ort
alit
y
With MI 5.7%
Without major bleed 2.0%
Without MI 1.9%
With major bleed 8.8%
1-Year Mortality (N=6,012)
![Page 4: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
R I V A L 30-Day Death According to Bleeding
OASIS Registry, OASIS-2, CURE
J Eikelboom et al Circulation 2006
02
46
81
01
21
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bleeding
No Bleeding
No. at Risk
No Bleeding
Bleeding
33676 33419 33157 32990 32879 32769 32710
470 (1.4%)
459 440 430 420 410 408
Cum
ula
tive E
vents
, %
Days
![Page 5: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
R I V A L Bleeding is Associated with an Increased
30-Day Mortality in NSTEMI Patients
Rao et al. Am J Cardiol 2005;96:1200-1206
N=26,452 ACS patients from
GUSTO IIb, PURSUIT and PARAGON A & B
Log-rank p values are 0.0001 for all 4 categories, 0.20 for no bleeding vs. mild bleeding, 0.0001 for
mild vs. moderate bleeding, and 0.001 for moderate vs. severe bleeding.
Adjusted HR
(95% CI)
% Death
2.9% 1.0
3.5% 1.6 (1.3-1.9)
5.9% 2.7 (2.3-3.4)
25.7% 10.6 (8.3-13.6)
GUSTO bleeding None Mild Moderate Severe
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
Days to Death
Cu
mu
lative
su
rviv
al
![Page 6: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
R I V A L
Bleeding is associated with
Death and Ischemic Events
Eikelboom JW et al. Circulation 2006;114(8):774-82.
HR 5.37 (3.97-7.26)
HR 4.44 (3.16-6.24)
HR 6.46 (3.54-11.79)
N=34,146
OASIS Registry,
OASIS 2, CURE trials
![Page 7: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Stone G, et al, NEJM 2008;358 : 2218 - 30
![Page 8: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Bleeding Within 30 Days is a Powerful and Independent Predictor of 1-year Death After PCI
Ndrepepa G. JACC 2008;51:690-7 * Calculated for a 10-year increase in age.
5,384 patients from 4 RCT on the value of abciximab after pretreatment with
600 mg of clopidogrel: ISAR-REACT, SWEET, SMART-2 and REACT-2
“Our study demonstrates a strong relationship between the 30-day frequency of bleeding
and 1-year mortality after PCI and supports the inclusion of periprocedural bleeding in a
30-day quadruple endpoint for the assessment of outcome after PCI.”
Variable Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Value
Bleeding within 30 days 2.96(1.96-4.48) <0.001
Myocardial infarction within 30 days 2.29(1.52-3.46) <0.001
Urgent revascularization within 30 days 2.49(1.16-5.35) 0.019
Age (years)* 2.27(1.78-2.89) <0.001
Diabetes 1.47(1.11-1.96) 0.008
Multivessel coronary disease 2.72(1.56-4.67) <0.001
Elevated troponin 1.77(1.27-2.47) <0.001
Left ventricular ejection fraction 0.71(0.60-0.85) <0.001
Creatinine level 1.10(1.06-1.14) <0.001
![Page 9: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Bleeding Within 30 Days is a Powerful and Independent Predictor of 1-year Death After PCI
Ndrepepa G. JACC 2008;51:690-7 * Calculated for a 10-year increase in age.
5,384 patients from 4 RCT on the value of abciximab after pretreatment with
600 mg of clopidogrel: ISAR-REACT, SWEET, SMART-2 and REACT-2
“Our study demonstrates a strong relationship between the 30-day frequency of bleeding
and 1-year mortality after PCI and supports the inclusion of periprocedural bleeding in a
30-day quadruple endpoint for the assessment of outcome after PCI.”
Variable Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Value
Bleeding within 30 days 2.96(1.96-4.48) <0.001
Myocardial infarction within 30 days 2.29(1.52-3.46) <0.001
Urgent revascularization within 30 days 2.49(1.16-5.35) 0.019
Age (years)* 2.27(1.78-2.89) <0.001
Diabetes 1.47(1.11-1.96) 0.008
Multivessel coronary disease 2.72(1.56-4.67) <0.001
Elevated troponin 1.77(1.27-2.47) <0.001
Left ventricular ejection fraction 0.71(0.60-0.85) <0.001
Creatinine level 1.10(1.06-1.14) <0.001
![Page 10: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
R I V A LBlood Transfusion is Associated with
an Increased 30-Day Mortality in NSTEMI
Rao et al. JAMA 2004;292:1555-62
N=24,112 ACS patients from GUSTO IIb, PURSUIT and PARAGON
*Adjusted for baseline characteristics, bleeding and transfusion propensity and nadir hematocrit
HR=3.94*;
95%CI: 3.26 to 4.75
30-day
death rate
Transfusion
No Transfusion
Cum
ula
tive m
ort
alit
y
Log-rank p<0.001
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
5 10 15 20 25 30
Day
8.00%
3.08%
![Page 11: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
The landmark message from these and other
studies, which was incorporated into the 2007
NSTEACS Guidelines, is that prevention of
bleeding MUST be regarded at least as important
as the prevention of major ischemic events, such as
myocardial infarction.
Major bleeding (with or without blood product transfusions) has emerged as a powerful independent predictor of early and late mortality in pts with NSTEMI, STEMI and is at
least as important as MI and myocardial
reinfarction
![Page 12: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
ACCESS Study
Radial Brachial Femoral p
Approach failure (%) 7 4.3 0.3 <0.001
Procedural success (%) 91.7 90.7 90.7 NS
Equipment:
Guiding cath. (n) 1.3 1.3 1.3 NS
Balloons (n) 1.3 1.3 1.3 NS
Stenting (%) 4.7 7 4.7 NS
Procedural time (Min) 40+24 39+25 38+24 NS
Fluoro. Time (Min 13+11 12+10 11+10 0.06
Hospital stay (days) 1.5+2.5 1.8+3.8 1.8+4.2 NS
Kiemeneij JACC 1997;29:1269-75
![Page 13: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
R I V A L
Prior Meta-analysis of 23 RCTs
of Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030)
Radial better Femoral better1.0
PCI Procedure Failure
Death
Death, MI or stroke
Major bleeding
1.31 (0.87-1.96)
0.74 (0.42-1.30)
0.71 (0.49-1.01)
0.27 (0.16-0.45)
Jolly SS, et al. Am Heart J 2009;157:132-40.
![Page 14: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Bleeding is an independent predictor of outcome
Reducing bleeding improves outcome
The Therapeutic Hypothesis in the Radial World
![Page 15: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
R I V A LOCTOPLUS: Primary endpoint, Intention to treat analysis
Femoral Radial p value
n= 185 192
Vasc. Surgery (%) 0 0.5 ns
Transfusion (%) 1.6 1.0 ns
Hb drop > 3g/DL (%) 3.8 0.5 0.063
False aneurysm compression (%) 1.1 0.5 ns
Arm or leg ischemia (%) 0 0 ns
Forearm compartment syndrom (%) 0 0 ns
Large hematoma* (%) 6.5 1.6 0.031
COMPOSITE END-POINT $ (%) 6.5 1.6 0.029
Hematoma (%) 11.4 3.5 0.003
CVA (%) 0.6 0 Ns
$ surgery, transfusion, Hb loss>3g/100ml-Ht loss>10%, ischemia, FA, vasc.
Complic. leading to discharge delay *Large hematoma: discharge delay
![Page 16: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
![Page 19: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
R I V A L
NSTE-ACS and STEMI(n=7021)
Radial Access(n=3507)
Femoral Access(n=3514)
Primary Outcome: Death, MI, stroke or non-CABG-related Major Bleeding at 30 days
Randomization
RIVAL Study Design
Key Inclusion:
• Intact dual circulation of hand required
• Interventionalist experienced with both (minimum 50 radial
procedures in last year)
Jolly SS et al. Am Heart J. 2011;161:254-60.
Blinded Adjudication of Outcomes
![Page 20: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
R I V A L
Operator Volume
Procedure Characteristics
Radial (n=3507)
Femoral (n=3514)
HR (95% CI)P
value
Operator Annual Volume
PCI/year (median, IQR)
300 (190, 400)
300 (190,400)
Percent Radial PCI(median, IQR)
40 (25,70)
40(25, 70)
PCI Success 95.4 95.2 1.01 (0.95-1.07) 0.83
• Vascular closure devices used in 26% of Femoral group
![Page 21: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
R I V A L
Other Outcomes
Radial(n=3507)
%
Femoral(n=3514)
%HR 95% CI P
Major Vascular Access Site Complications
1.4 3.7 0.37 0.27-0.52 <0.0001
Other Definitions of Major Bleeding
TIMI Non-CABG Major Bleeding
0.5 0.5 1.00 0.53-1.89 1.00
ACUITY Non-CABG Major Bleeding*
1.9 4.5 0.43 0.32-0.57 <0.0001
* Post Hoc analysis
![Page 22: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
R I V A L
Other Outcomes
Radial(n=3507)
%
Femoral (n=3514)
%HR 95% CI P
Death 1.3 1.5 0.86 0.58-1.29 0.47
MI 1.7 1.9 0.92 0.65-1.31 0.65
Stroke 0.6 0.4 1.43 0.72-2.83 0.30
Stent Thrombosis 0.7 1.2 0.63 0.34-1.17 0.14
![Page 23: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
R I V A L
Other Outcomes
Radial(n=3507)
Femoral (n=3514)
P
Access site Cross-over (%) 7.6 2.0 <0.0001
PCI Procedure duration (min) 35 34 0.62
Fluoroscopy time (min) 9.3 8.0 <0.0001
Persistent pain at access site >2 weeks (%)
2.6 3.1 0.22
Patient prefers assigned access site for next procedure (%)
90 49 <0.0001
• Symptomatic radial occlusion requiring medical attention 0.2% in radial group
![Page 24: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Death, MI, Stroke or non-CABG major Bleed
Subgroups: Primary OutcomeR I V A L
0.251.00 4.00
Radial better Femoral better
Hazard Ratio (95% CI)
<75≥75
FemaleMale
<2525-35>35
≤70
70-142.5>142.5
Lowest TertileMiddle TertileHighest Tertile
NSTE-ACSSTEMI
Age
Gender
BMI
Radial PCI Volume by Operator
Radial PCI Volume by Centre
Diagnosis at presentation
Overall
0.786
0.356
0.637
0.536
0.021
0.025
Interactionp-value
![Page 25: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
R I V A L
Conclusion
No significant difference between radial and
femoral access in primary outcome of death, MI,
stroke or non-CABG major bleeding
Rates of primary outcome appeared to be lower
with radial compared to femoral access in high
volume radial centres and STEMI
Radial had fewer major vascular complications with
similar PCI success
![Page 26: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
R I V A L
Conclusion
No significant difference between radial and
femoral access in primary outcome of death, MI,
stroke or non-CABG major bleeding
Rates of primary outcome appeared to be lower
with radial compared to femoral access in high
volume radial centres and STEMI
Radial had fewer major vascular complications with
similar PCI success
![Page 27: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Radial versus Femoral
Randomized Investigation
in ST Elevation Acute
Coronary Syndrome
the RIFLE STEACS study
Principal investigators:Enrico Romagnoli, MD PhDGiuseppe Biondi-Zoccai, MD
Giuseppe Sangiorgi, MD
F R
![Page 28: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
R I V A L
RIFLE STEACS - flow chartDesign
• DESIGN:
Prospective, randomized (1:1),
parallel group, multi-center trial.
• INCLUSION CRITERIA:
all ST Elevation Myocardial
infarction (STEMI) eligible for
primary percutaneous coronary
intervention.
• ESCLUSION CRITERIA:
contraindication to any of both
percutaneous arterial access.
international normalized ratio (INR)
> 2.0.
1001 patients enrolled between January 2009
and July 2011 in 4 clinical sites in Italy
Clinical follow-up at 1
month in 100%
Femoral arm
(N=501)
Radial arm
(N=500)
Femoral arm
(N=534)
Radial arm
(N=467)
Clinical follow-up at 1
month in 100%
Intention-to-treat analysis
![Page 29: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
NACE MACCE Bleedings
femoral arm radial armp = 0.003
• Net Adverse Clinical Event (NACE) = MACCE + bleeding
30-day NACE rate
RIFLE STEACS – results
p = 0.029 p = 0.026
21.0%
11.4%
7.2%
12.2%
7.8%
13.6%
![Page 30: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
NACE MACCE Bleedings
femoral arm radial armp = 0.003
• Net Adverse Clinical Event (NACE) = MACCE + bleeding
• Major Adverse Cardiac and Cerebrovascular event (MACCE) = composite of cardiac
death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, stroke
30-day NACE rate
RIFLE STEACS – results
p = 0.029 p = 0.026
21.0%
11.4%
7.2%
12.2%
7.8%
13.6%
![Page 31: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
30-day bleeding rate
RIFLE STEACS – results
p = 1.000
12.2%
6.8%
2.6%
5.4% 5.2%
p = 0.026
Bleedings Access site related Non access site related
femoral arm radial arm
7.8%
47%
p = 0.002
![Page 32: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Cardiac death Myocardial
Infarction
Target Lesion
Revascularization
Cerebrovascular
Accident
femoral arm radial armp = 0.020
30-day MACCE rate
RIFLE STEACS – results
p = 1.000 p = 0.604 p = 0.725
9.2%
5.2%
1.4% 1.2% 1.8%1.2% 0.6% 0.8%
![Page 33: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
p = 0.7
30-day MACE
STEMI RADIAL - results
p = 0.64
p = 0.72
p = 1.0
4.2%
3.5%3.1%
2.3%
0.8%1.2%
0.3% 0.3%
MACE = composite of death, myocardial infarction and stroke
![Page 34: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
p = 0.0028
30-day NACE
STEMI RADIAL - results
p = 0.7
p = 0.0001
11.0%
7.2%
1.4%
4.2%3.5%
4.6%
Net Adverse Clinical Event (NACE) = MACE + major bleeding
MACE = composite of death, myocardial infarction and stroke
80%
58%
![Page 35: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Transradial approach: the best
way to reduce the vascular
complication rate and the cost,
and to improve patient comfort
Institut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud
Transradial approach: the best way to reduce the vascular complication rate and the cost, and to improve
patient comfort
![Page 36: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
R I V A L
![Page 37: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Myths of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Delay in accessing the radial artery
2. Spasms and other anatomical problems
3. Poor guiding catheter support
4. Difficulty in CTO lesions
5. Difficulty in complex lesions
6. Difficulty in using aspiration systems
7. Difficulty in using rotablator and other devices
8. Difficulty in CABG patients
![Page 38: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Myths of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Delay in accessing the radial artery
2. Spasms and other anatomical problems
3. Poor guiding catheter support
4. Difficulty in CTO lesions
5. Difficulty in complex lesions
6. Difficulty in using aspiration systems
7. Difficulty in using rotablator and other devices
8. Difficulty in CABG patients
![Page 39: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
•High volume center: >146 radial PCI/year/ median operator at centre
•Medium volume center: 61-146 radial PCI/year/ median operator at centre
•Low volume center: ≤60 radial PCI/year/ median operator at centre
RADIAL EXPERIENCE
![Page 40: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Transradial Approach Failure in Relation to Volume
y = -1,2931Ln(x) + 11,464
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
p= 0.002
%
*Failure to enter ascending aortaY. Louvard, unpublished
![Page 41: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Myths of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Delay in accessing the radial artery
2. Spasms and other anatomical problems
3. Poor guiding catheter support
4. Difficulty in CTO lesions
5. Difficulty in complex lesions
6. Difficulty in using aspiration systems
7. Difficulty in using rotablator and other devices
8. Difficulty in CABG patients
![Page 42: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
![Page 43: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
![Page 45: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
![Page 46: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
![Page 47: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
![Page 48: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Predictive Factors of Radial Approach
FailureSuccess Failure* p
n= 2347 53
Age (years) 61.6+11.3 65+11.2 0.03
Male (%) 84 73.7 0.068
Hypertension (%) 42.2 43.4 ns
Dyslipidemia (%) 72.9 69.8 ns
Diabetes (%) 8.4 13.2 ns
Smoking (%) 26.9 22.6 ns
Left radial (%) 3.2 18.9 0.000
Re-radial (%) 21.9 17 ns
N° of Same Radial (n) 1.3+0.7 1.3+0.6 ns
N° Dis. Coro. Vessels (n) 1.8+0.8 1.7+0.7 ns
Weight (kg) 76.9+13.5 72.8+13.8 0.029
Height (cm) 169.3+8.3 166.4+10.3 0.03
*Failure to enter ascending aorta
![Page 49: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
<40 y
n=64
40-49 y
n=298
50-59 y
n=606
60-69 y
n=779
70-79 y
n=552
> 80 y
n=110
Radial approach failure rate%
Radial Approach Failure Rate
in Relation to Age
Y. Louvard, unpublished
![Page 50: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Radial Approach Failure Rate in Relation to Weight
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
<50 kg 50-59 kg 60-69 kg 70-79 kg 80-89 kg 90-99 kg 100-09 kg >110 kg
Total Male Female
Y. Louvard, unpublished
![Page 51: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
R I V A L
Tortuous Right Subclavian Artery:
Prevalence and Predictive Factors
2,341 consecutive right radial approaches
Prevalence (%) 10.8
Cross-over to Left Radial or Femoral (%) 4
Complications (%) 0
Independent predictive factors:
OR 95% CI p
Hypertension 1.6 1.3-2.1 <0.0003
Age 1.4 1.2-1.7 0.0001
BMI 1.2 1.0-1.4 0.015
Cha CCVI 2002; 56: abst 69
![Page 52: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Conclusions
LRA for coronary angiography and interventions is associated with slight but
significant lower fluoroscopy time and radiation dose compared to RRA
The LRA advantage seems to be confined to operators at the beginning of
learning curve (fellows) and to be more pronounced in older patients
PoliclinicoCASILINO
TALENT study (left vs right radial)
![Page 53: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
PCI Group
11.8
11.1
Gy/c
m2
0
10
12P= 0.23
153
132
Fluoroscopy time
0
130
160
se
co
nd
s
P= 0.034
Height <160 cm
(n=236)
RRA (n= 132)
LRA (n= 104)
Dose Area Product (Fluoroscopy)
183
167
Fluoroscopy time
0
170
200
se
co
nd
s
P= 0.001
14.7
11.5
0
10
15
P= 0.001
Age ≥75 years
(n=343)
RRA (n= 168)
LRA (n= 175)
Dose Area Product (Fluoroscopy)
Gy/c
m2
Results
Konstantopoulio/KAT hemodynamic dpts
![Page 54: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
80-year old man from the STEMI-RADIAL trial :
Radial PCI one week after randomization to femoral primary PCI
![Page 55: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
![Page 56: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Myths of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Delay in accessing the radial artery
2. Spasms and other anatomical problems
3. Poor guiding catheter support
4. Difficulty in CTO lesions
5. Difficulty in complex lesions
6. Difficulty in using aspiration systems
7. Difficulty in using rotablator and other devices
8. Difficulty in CABG patients
![Page 57: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
![Page 58: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
![Page 59: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
“Mother and child” technique - quideliner
Konstantopoulio hemodynamic dpt
![Page 60: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
“Mother and child” technique - quideliner
Konstantopoulio hemodynamic dpt
![Page 61: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Myths of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Delay in accessing the radial artery
2. Spasms and other anatomical problems
3. Poor guiding catheter support
4. Difficulty in CTO lesions
5. Difficulty in complex lesions
6. Difficulty in using aspiration systems
7. Difficulty in using rotablator and other devices
8. Difficulty in CABG patients
![Page 62: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
![Page 63: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
![Page 64: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
![Page 65: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Radial Artery Diameter (Ultrasound)n=120
0
10
20
30
40
50
<2,1mm 2,1-2,4mm 2,5-2,7mm 2,8-3,1mm >3,1mm
2,9+0,6 mm
5f 6f 7f 8f
![Page 66: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
![Page 67: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
![Page 68: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
![Page 69: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
![Page 70: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Myths of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Delay in accessing the radial artery
2. Spasms and other anatomical problems
3. Poor guiding catheter support
4. Difficulty in CTO lesions
5. Difficulty in complex lesions
6. Difficulty in using aspiration systems
7. Difficulty in using rotablator and other devices
8. Difficulty in CABG patients
![Page 71: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
![Page 72: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
![Page 73: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
bifurcation: RRA – XB 3,5 6F
Konstantopoulio hemodynamic dpt
![Page 74: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Konstantopoulio hemodynamic dpt
bifurcation: RRA – XB 3,5 7F
![Page 75: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
bifurcation: RRA – XB 3,5 7F
Konstantopoulio hemodynamic dpt
![Page 76: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
LM-distal trifurcation: RRA – XB 3,5 7F
technique - quideliner
Konstantopoulio hemodynamic dpt
![Page 77: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Radial Artery Diameter (Ultrasound)n=120
0
10
20
30
40
50
<2,1mm 2,1-2,4mm 2,5-2,7mm 2,8-3,1mm >3,1mm
2,9+0,6 mm
5f 6f 7f 8f
![Page 78: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
R I V A L
Catheters / Devices/ Technique Compatibility
Catheter Size Devices Techniques Radial Compatibility
5f Balloons < 5 mm
Stents < 4.5 mm
Ivus
Rota 1.25 mm
No Kissing Balloon
100%
6f All Coronary balloons
All Coronary stents
Cutting Balloon
Rota < 1.75 mm
Protection device(EPI…)
Kissing Balloon
86.9%
7f Angioguard
Rota 2 mm
Kissing Stent76.9%
8f Percusurge
Simpson
Rota >2 mm
64.7%
![Page 79: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Myths of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Delay in accessing the radial artery
2. Spasms and other anatomical problems
3. Poor guiding catheter support
4. Difficulty in CTO lesions
5. Difficulty in complex lesions
6. Difficulty in using aspiration systems
7. Difficulty in using rotablator and other devices
8. Difficulty in CABG patients
![Page 80: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
RCA: Aspiration device – anjiojet, XBRCA 6F
Konstantopoulio hemodynamic dpt
![Page 81: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Myths of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Delay in accessing the radial artery
2. Spasms and other anatomical problems
3. Poor guiding catheter support
4. Difficulty in CTO lesions
5. Difficulty in complex lesions
6. Difficulty in using aspiration systems
7. Difficulty in using rotablator and other devices
8. Difficulty in CABG patients
![Page 82: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
R I V A L
Catheters / Devices/ Technique Compatibility
Catheter Size Devices Techniques Radial Compatibility
5f Balloons < 5 mm
Stents < 4.5 mm
Ivus
Rota 1.25 mm
No Kissing Balloon
100%
6f All Coronary balloons
All Coronary stents
Cutting Balloon
Rota < 1.75 mm
Protection device(EPI…)
Kissing Balloon
86.9%
7f Angioguard
Rota 2 mm
Kissing Stent76.9%
8f Percusurge
Simpson
Rota >2 mm
64.7%
![Page 83: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Myths of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Delay in accessing the radial artery
2. Spasms and other anatomical problems
3. Poor guiding catheter support
4. Difficulty in CTO lesions
5. Difficulty in complex lesions
6. Difficulty in using aspiration systems
7. Difficulty in using rotablator and other devices
8. Difficulty in CABG patients
![Page 84: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
![Page 85: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
![Page 86: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
![Page 87: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
LIMA via RRA
Konstantopoulio hemodynamic dpt
![Page 88: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
![Page 89: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Konstantopoulio hemodynamic dpt
LIMA via RRA
![Page 90: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
![Page 91: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
LIMA via RRA
Konstantopoulio hemodynamic dpt
![Page 92: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
![Page 93: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
Real problems of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Most centers have no formal TRA program
2. Operators fear technical failure and care for fluoroscopy time
3. Ruin of radial graft after transradial catheterization
4. Post-procedure occlussion of radial artery
![Page 94: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
Real problems of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Most centers have no formal TRA program
2. Operators fear technical failure and care for fluoroscopy time
3. Ruin of radial graft after transradial catheterization
4. Post-procedure occlussion of radial artery
![Page 95: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
R I V A L
![Page 96: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
•High volume center: >146 radial PCI/year/ median operator at centre
•Medium volume center: 61-146 radial PCI/year/ median operator at centre
•Low volume center: ≤60 radial PCI/year/ median operator at centre
RADIAL EXPERIENCE
![Page 97: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
Transradial Approach Failure in Relation to Volume
y = -1,2931Ln(x) + 11,464
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
p= 0.002
%
*Failure to enter ascending aortaY. Louvard, unpublished
![Page 98: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
R I V A L
Other Outcomes
Radial(n=3507)
Femoral (n=3514)
P
Access site Cross-over (%) 7.6 2.0 <0.0001
PCI Procedure duration (min) 35 34 0.62
Fluoroscopy time (min) 9.3 8.0 <0.0001
Persistent pain at access site >2 weeks (%)
2.6 3.1 0.22
Patient prefers assigned access site for next procedure (%)
90 49 <0.0001
• Symptomatic radial occlusion requiring medical attention 0.2% in radial group
![Page 99: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
Real problems of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Most centers have no formal TRA program
2. Operators fear technical failure and care for fluoroscopy time
3. Ruin of radial graft after transradial catheterization
4. Post-procedure occlussion of radial artery
![Page 100: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
R I V A L
Use of the radial artery graft after transradial
catheterization: is it suitable as a bypass conduit?
67 pts underwent isolated CABG using the radial artery (RA)
preop. transradial no transradial p value
catheterization catheterization
N= 22 45
Stenosis-free graft patency
Left mammary artery (%) 88 90 0.87
Radial artery (%) 77 98 0.017
Saphenous vein (%) 87 84 0.42
Intimal hyperplasia of RA (%) 68 39 0.046
Kamiya Ann Thorac Surg. 2003; 76(5): 1505-9
![Page 101: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
R I V A L
Use of the radial artery graft after transradial
catheterization: is it suitable as a bypass conduit?
67 pts underwent isolated CABG using the radial artery (RA)
preop. transradial no transradial p value
catheterization catheterization
N= 22 45
Stenosis-free graft patency
Left mammary artery (%) 88 90 0.87
Radial artery (%) 77 98 0.017
Saphenous vein (%) 87 84 0.42
Intimal hyperplasia of RA (%) 68 39 0.046
Kamiya Ann Thorac Surg. 2003; 76(5): 1505-9
![Page 102: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
R I V A L
IVUS after transradial approach
JACC 2003;41;1109-14
![Page 103: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
Early ultrasonic results
Pre-procedure Post-procedure p
Diameter (mm) 3.64 ± 0.74 3.55 ± 0.77 ns
Upstream flow (cm/sec) 29.13 ± 9.51 30.8 ± 11.26 ns
Downstream flow(cm/sec) 28.73 ± 11.84 ns
Duration (mn) 2.92 ± 0.55 3.35 ± 0.83 ns
270 patients
4 radial occluded (1.3%) :
- 2 with a negative flow
- 2 without flow
J. Monsegu
![Page 104: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
R I V A L Radial Artery/Sheath Diameter Ratio: A
Predictor of Severe Radial Artery Flow
Reduction
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Radial Inner
Diameter / Sheath
>1
Radial Inner
Diameter / Sheath
<1
Severe Radial Flow Reduction
Saïto CCVI 46: 173-178, 1999
![Page 105: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
Real problems of TRANSRADIAL APPROACH
1. Most centers have no formal TRA program
2. Operators fear technical failure and care for fluoroscopy time
3. Ruin of radial graft after transradial catheterization
4. Post-procedure occlussion of radial artery
![Page 106: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
Thrombotic occlusion of the radial artery:
3-6% in trials with mandatory doppler (Mann 1996, BRAFE Stent 1997, ACCESS 1997)
0-9% loss of radial pulse in the others
Radial Artery Occlussion
![Page 107: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
![Page 108: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
R I V A LReduction of RAO
Introducer vs radial artery size
Procedure manipulations
Post procedure artery compression
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Radial Inner
Diameter / Sheath
>1
Radial Inner
Diameter / Sheath
<1
Severe Radial Flow Reduction
![Page 109: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
![Page 110: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
Damn
Femoral!Hi hi hi,
mine was randomized
to radial
I guess,
It’s just not
my day
![Page 111: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
R I V A L
Casual approach is dangerous…
Even for this job….
![Page 112: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
Clear Choice
TRANSRADIAL ROUTE IS THE CLEAR
OPTION FOR ALMOST ALL PATIENTS
Only after your “new
learning curve” is over
BUT:
![Page 113: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
![Page 114: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
Radial access: just another
artery?ACCESS Study
Randomised comparison of different access sites
Experienced operators
No difference in procedural or fluoroscopy times
Radial Brachial Femoral
PCI’s (n) 300 300 300
Coronary cannulation 93% 95.7% 99.7%
Procedural success 91.7% 90.7% 90.7%
Length of stay (days) 1.5(2.5) 1.8(3.8) 1.8(4.2)
Major access site complications 0 2.3 2.0
JACC 1997; 29: 1269-75. Amsterdam, NL
![Page 115: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
Radial access: just another
artery?Multiple procedures
812 patients
1438 procedures
6F – 45%
5F – 55%
Failed procedures
(%)
5th3rd2nd
30103.5Men
50207.9Women
CCVI 2001;54: 204-8. Fukuoka, Japan
![Page 116: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
![Page 117: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
Radial access: just another
artery?Difficult radial anatomy – small vessels (1) Randomised trial of 5Fr vs 6Fr transradial
PCI in 171 patients with a +ve Allen test
5Fr 6Fr
Procedural success 95.4% 92.9%
Failed coronary cannulation 1.1% 4.8%
Minor haematoma 1.1% 4.8%
Radial occlusion 1.1% 5.9%
CCVI 2002; 57: 172-6. Greifswa, FRG
![Page 118: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
Radial access: just another
artery?GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors
150 consecutive patients treated with GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors
Radial Femoral
PCI’s (n) 83 67
Event free @ 1/12 94% 94%
Length of stay (days) 5.0 4.9
Major access site bleeding
0 5 (7.4%)
Eur Heart J 2000; 21: 662-7. Toulouse, Fr.
![Page 119: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
Radial Artery Diameter (Ultrasound)n=120
0
10
20
30
40
50
<2,1mm 2,1-2,4mm 2,5-2,7mm 2,8-3,1mm >3,1mm
2,9+0,6 mm
5f 6f 7f 8f
Y. Louvard unpublished
![Page 120: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
![Page 121: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/121.jpg)
![Page 122: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/122.jpg)
Procedure- and Non-Procedure-Related Bleeds are Associated with an higher 30-Day Mortality in NSTEMI
Procedure-related
GUSTO bleeds
Non-procedure-related
GUSTO bleeds
Ris
k o
f death
(hazard
Ratio)
None
1.0
Mild
1.3
Severe
16.5
0
5
20
10
15
None
1.0
Mild
2.1
Moderate
2.5
Severe
10.9
Moderate
3.7
Rao et al. Am J Cardiol 2005;96:1200-1206
N=26,452 ACS patients from
GUSTO IIb, PURSUIT and PARAGON A & B
![Page 123: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/123.jpg)
R I V A L Major Bleeding is Associated with an Increased
Risk of Hospital Death in ACS Patients
Moscucci et al. Eur Heart J 2003;24:1815-23
GRACE Registry in 24,045 ACS patients
*After adjustment for comorbidities, clinical presentation and hospital therapies
**p<0.001 for differences in unadjusted death rates
OR (95% CI)
1.64 (1.18 to 2.28*)
0
Overall ACS UA NSTEMI STEMI
10
20
30
40
**
** **
**
5.1
18.6
3.0
16.1
5.3
15.3
7.0
22.8
Inhospital death
(%
)
In hospital major bleeding YesNo
![Page 124: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/124.jpg)
Variable Groups O.R. (95% CI) p-value
Creatinine clearance
<30 mL/min 7.21 (2.53–20.51)
<0.000130–60 mL/min 3.34 (1.92–5.78)
60–90 mL/min 1.57 (0.96–2.57)
CHF Yes 4.38 (2.83–6.78) <0.0001
Major Bleeding Yes 3.26 (1.78–5.96) 0.0001
MI @30day Yes 2.77 (1.62–4.75) 0.0002
Urg Revasc @30d Yes 2.77 (1.15–6.71) .024
Hx angina Yes 2.18 (1.25–3.81) 0.006
Prior MI Yes 1.81 (1.09–3.03) 0.023
Diabetes Yes 1.64 (1.10–2.44) 0.015
Predictors of 1-year Mortality
after Elective and Urgent PCI
Stone GW. J Inv Cardiol 2004;16(suppl G):12–17.
![Page 125: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/125.jpg)
Transradial Approach [LEft vs right]
aNd procedural Times during
percutaneous coronary
procedures: TALENT study
ALESSANDRO SCIAHBASI, MD
UO Cardiologia, Policlinico Casilino – ASL RM B, Rome, Italy
![Page 126: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/126.jpg)
R I V A L
Definitions
Major Bleeding (CURRENT/OASIS 7)
• Fatal
• > 2 units of Blood transfusion
• Hypotension requiring inotropes
• Leading to hemoglobin drop of ≥ 5 g/dl
• Requiring surgical intervention
• ICH or Intraocular bleeding leading to significant vision loss
MajorVascular Access Site Complications
• Large hematoma
• Pseudoaneurysm requiring closure
• AV fistula
• Other vascular surgery related to the access site
![Page 127: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/127.jpg)
R I V A L
Site of Non-CABG Major Bleeds
(RIVAL definition)
*Sites of Non Access site Bleed: Gastrointestinal (most common site), ICH,
Pericardial Tamponade and Other
![Page 128: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/128.jpg)
R I V A L
Use of the radial artery graft after transradial
catheterization: is it suitable as a bypass
conduit?
67 pts underwent isolated CABG using the radial artery (RA)
preop. transradial no transradial p value
catheterization catheterization
N= 22 45
Stenosis-free graft patency
Left mammary artery (%) 88 90 = 0.87
Radial artery (%) 77 98 = 0.017
Saphenous vein (%) 87 84 = 0.42
Intimal hyperplasia of RA (%) 68 39 = 0.046
Kamiya Ann Thorac Surg. 2003; 76(5): 1505-9
![Page 129: Advances in trans-radial interventionsstatic.livemedia.gr/hcs2/documents/us89_20131216095050_patsilinakos.pdfof Radial vs. Femoral (N=7030) Radial better 1.0 Femoral better PCI Procedure](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071216/6048a5930f0c346c1447f2ed/html5/thumbnails/129.jpg)