Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Frequency of ventriculography during left heart catheterization for radial vs. femoral access.

Contributor(s):

Publication details: 2024; ; ISSN:

1878-0938

Subject(s):

Online resources:

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2024.04.021

Summary: BACKGROUND: Radial artery access has been used for left heart catheterization (LHC) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for over 30 years. This method has gained popularity among operators due to superficial vessel anatomy, allowing for easy accessibility and compressibility, resulting in effective hemostasis.Summary: CONCLUSIONS: The analysis revealed that operators may perform fewer ventriculography and RHC procedures when using radial access as compared to femoral access. While there is discrepancy in performing left ventriculography and RHC when using a radial artery, it is essential to emphasize that routinely performing ventriculography and hemodynamic assessment has not proven to impact outcomes, despite their contributions to proper decision-making and treatment. Copyright Â© 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.Summary: METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent PCI due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), and chest pain (stable angina) from November 2013 to February 2023.Summary: RESULTS: We analyzed validated registries and found 7714 PCIs. Of these, 1230 were STEMI patients, 5585 were NSTE-ACS patients, and 899 were stable angina patients, forming the basis of our final analysis. In STEMI patients, there was a trend toward a higher rate of ventriculography with femoral access compared to radial access (53.4 % vs. 47.5 %, p = 0.06), which was also observed in NSTE-ACS patients (34.2 % vs. 31.8 %, p = 0.07). The use of central venous access was more common with femoral access in all three diagnoses, with significantly higher rates seen in STEMI patients (36.2 % vs. 7.6 %, p < 0.001), NSTE-ACS patients (19.3 % vs. 2.8 %, p < 0.001), and chest pain patients (26.4 % vs. 2.7 %, p < 0.001).

Holdings ( 1 )
Title notes ( 6 )

Holdings
Item type	Current library	Collection	Call number	Status	Date due	Barcode
Journal Article	MedStar Authors Catalog	Article		Available		38677895

Available in print through MWHC library: 2002 - present

BACKGROUND: Radial artery access has been used for left heart catheterization (LHC) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for over 30 years. This method has gained popularity among operators due to superficial vessel anatomy, allowing for easy accessibility and compressibility, resulting in effective hemostasis.

CONCLUSIONS: The analysis revealed that operators may perform fewer ventriculography and RHC procedures when using radial access as compared to femoral access. While there is discrepancy in performing left ventriculography and RHC when using a radial artery, it is essential to emphasize that routinely performing ventriculography and hemodynamic assessment has not proven to impact outcomes, despite their contributions to proper decision-making and treatment. Copyright Â© 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent PCI due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), and chest pain (stable angina) from November 2013 to February 2023.

RESULTS: We analyzed validated registries and found 7714 PCIs. Of these, 1230 were STEMI patients, 5585 were NSTE-ACS patients, and 899 were stable angina patients, forming the basis of our final analysis. In STEMI patients, there was a trend toward a higher rate of ventriculography with femoral access compared to radial access (53.4 % vs. 47.5 %, p = 0.06), which was also observed in NSTE-ACS patients (34.2 % vs. 31.8 %, p = 0.07). The use of central venous access was more common with femoral access in all three diagnoses, with significantly higher rates seen in STEMI patients (36.2 % vs. 7.6 %, p < 0.001), NSTE-ACS patients (19.3 % vs. 2.8 %, p < 0.001), and chest pain patients (26.4 % vs. 2.7 %, p < 0.001).

English