SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Kardiyoloji Derneği Arşivi / 2021 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 4

Distal transradial versus conventional transradial access in acute coronary syndrome

Akut koroner sendromda distal transradial erişim ile konvansiyonel transradial erişimin karşılaştırması

Muhammet Kızmaz
Mehmet Alparslan Küçük
Tevfik Fikret İlgenli
Kenan Erdem
Ertugrul Kurtoğlu
Pages
257–265
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In the distal TRA group, the total sheath emplacement time was longer (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Distal transradial access (TRA) has been recently introduced as an alternative access site for coronary angiography (CAG).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Seventy patients undergoing CAG via distal TRA and 63 patients via conventional TRA were included in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the distal TRA group, the total sheath emplacement time was longer (p
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Distal transradial access (TRA) has been recently introduced as an alternative access site for coronary angiography (CAG). Both procedures can be performed in cardiology clinics by interventional cardiologists. Although distal TRA is considered to be more difficult as it requires artery puncture and experienced cardiologists, it seems to be more advantageous because of the limited risk of arterial occlusion. In this study, we share our experiences with distal TRA and conventional TRA. Methods: Seventy patients undergoing CAG via distal TRA and 63 patients via conventional TRA were included in this study. The patients’ data were reviewed retrospectively and compared in terms of procedural characteristics and complications. Results: There was no significant difference between the distal TRA group (94.2%) and the conventional TRA group (98.4%) in terms of success rate (p=0.217). In the distal TRA group, the total sheath emplacement time was longer (p

Özet

Amaç: Distal transradial erişim (TRE), son zamanlarda koroner anjiyografi (KAG) için alternatif bir erişim bölgesi olarak tanıtılmıştır. Distal TRE ve geleneksel TRE işlemlerinin her ikisi de girişimsel kardiyologlar tarafından uygulanabilmektedir. Distal TRE arter ponksiyonu ve giriş kısmen daha zordur ve ayrıca ek deneyim ve tecrübe istemekle birlikte radial arter oklüzyonunun daha az olması açısından avantajlı gibi görünmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, distal TRE ve geleneksel TRE ile ilgili deneyimlerimizi paylaşmaktır. Yöntemler: Distal TRE yöntemi ile yapılan ardışık 70 KAG hastası ile geleneksel TRE yöntemi ile yapılan 63 hasta retrospektif olarak incelendi ve işlemsel özellikler ve komplikasyonlar açısından karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Başarı oranı açısından distal TRE grubu ile (94.2%), geleneksel TRE grubu (98.4%) arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yoktu (p=0.217). Toplam sheath yerleştirme süresi distal TRE grubunda daha uzun (p

🔖

Cite This Article

Kızmaz, M., Küçük, M. A., İlgenli, T. F., Erdem, K., Kurtoğlu, E. (2022). Distal transradial versus conventional transradial access in acute coronary syndrome. Türk Kardiyoloji Derneği Arşivi, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 4, 257–265. https://ajindex.com/articles/631911

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Mueller RL, Sanborn TA. The history of interventional cardiology; cardiac catheterization, angioplasty and related interventions. Am Heart J 1995;129:146-72. [Crossref] 2. Brueck M, Bandorski D, Kramer W, Wieczorek M, Höltgen R, Tillmanns H. A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:1047-54. [Crossref] 3. Radner S. Thoracal aortography by catheterization from the radial artery. Acta Radiol 1948;29:178-80. [Crossref] 4. Campeau L. Percutaneous radial approach for coronary angiography. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1989;16:3-7. [Crossref] 5. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, de Melker E. Transradial coronary artery angioplasty (Abstr). Circulation 1993;88:I-251. 6. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, de Melker E. Transradial coronary artery angioplasty. Am Heart J 1995;129:1-7. [Crossref] 7. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ. Percutaneous transradial artery approach for coronary Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation. Am Heart J 1994;128:167-74. [Crossref] 8. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, Zaro T, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2015;385:2465- 76. [Crossref] 9. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, Niemelä K, Xavier D, Widimsky P, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 2011;307:1409-20. [Crossref] 10. Hamon M, Nolan J. Should radial artery access be the “gold standard” for PCI? Heart 2008;94:1530-32. [Crossref] 11. Sinha SK, Jha MJ, Mishra V, Thakur R, Goel A, Kumar A, et al. Radial artery occlusion - incidence, predictors and longterm outcome after transradial catheterization: clinico-Doppler ultrasound-based study (RAIL-TRAC study). Acta Cardiol 2017;72:318-27. [Crossref] 12. Kiemeneij F. Left distal transradial access in the anatomical snuffbox for coronary angiography (ldTRA) and interventions (ldTRI). EuroIntervention 2017;13:851-57. [Crossref] 13. Soydan E, Akın M. Coronary angiography using the left distal radial approach - an alternative site to conventional radial coronary angiography. Anatol J Cardiol 2018;19:243-48. [Crossref] 14. Kim Y, Ahn Y, Kim I, Lee DH, Kim MC, Sim DS, et al. Feasibility of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via left snuffbox approach. Korean Circ J 2018;48:1120-30.