Gültekin Günhan DEMİR
(İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Kardiyoloji Bölümü, İstanbul, Türkiye)
Ekrem GÜLER
(İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Kardiyoloji Bölümü, İstanbul, Türkiye)
Yıl: 2020Cilt: 42Sayı: 2ISSN: 2149-2247 / 2149-2549Sayfa Aralığı: 139 - 142İngilizce

64 0
Should We Use a Staged or Ad hoc Approach in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Through the Radial Artery to Avoid Radial Artery Spasm?
Objective: Transradial approach has recently been adopted as the default strategy for percutaneous coronary interventions due to benefits which include reduced all-cause mortality, major access-site complications, and hospital stay, as well as increased patient comfort and early ambulation. However, radial artery spasm (RAS) is still a major drawback. The impact on RAS of an ad hoc compared with a staged intervention strategy has not previously been investigated. In this study, we sought to investigate the effect of ad hoc and staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on RAS in patients undergoing elective transradial coronary interventions. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, patients with symptoms suggestive of ischemia who were scheduled for coronary angiography and candidates for elective PCI were enrolled and divided into two equal groups: ad hoc group and staged group. RAS was clinically identified and established based on the existence of two or more of predefined clinical features. Results: A total of 60 patients was enrolled in the study: 30 in the ad hoc group and 30 in the staged group. The mean time between coronary angiography and intervention in the staged group was 2.5 [1–30] days. RAS rates were similar between the ad hoc and staged PCI groups (16.7% [n=5] vs. 31% [n=9], p=0.233), but post-procedural pain was more frequent in patients in the ad hoc group (64.5% [n=20] vs. 33.3% [n=10], p=0.021). Radial artery occlusion did not differ between the ad hoc and staged PCI groups (10.7 % [n=3] vs. 11.1 [n=3], p=1). Conclusion: Use of ad hoc or staged strategies in patients undergoing transradial PCIs is not associated with reduced incidence of RAS. Post-procedural pain is more common in patients undergoing ad hoc PCI through radial artery.
DergiAraştırma MakalesiErişime Açık
  • 1. Chugh SK, Chugh Y, Chugh S. How to tackle complications in radial procedures: Tip and tricks. Indian Heart J 2015; 67(3): 275–81.
  • 2. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/ EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019; 40(2): 87–165.
  • 3. Jia DA, Zhou YJ, Shi DM, Liu YY, Wang JL, Liu XL, et al. Incidence and predictors of radial artery spasm during transradial coronary angiography and intervention. Chin Med J (Engl) 2010; 123(7): 843–7.
  • 4. Omaygenc MO, Karaca IO, Ibisoglu E, Günes HM, Kizilirmak F, Cakal B, et al. A novel predictor of radial spasm: arterial stiffness. Blood Press Monit 2018; 23(5): 253–9.
  • 5. Ho HH, Jafary FH, Ong PJ. Radial artery spasm during transradial cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention: incidence, predisposing factors, prevention, and management. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2012; 13(3): 193–5.
  • 6. He GW, Yang CQ. Characteristics of adrenoceptors in the human radial artery: clinical implications. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998; 115(5): 1136–41.
  • 7. Tebaldi M, Biscaglia S, Tumscitz C, Del Franco A, Gallo F, Spitaleri G, et al. Comparison of Verapamil versus Heparin as Adjunctive Treatment for Transradial Coronary Procedures: The VERMUT Study. Cardiology 2018; 140(2): 74–82.
  • 8. Curtis E, Fernandez R, Lee A. The effect of topical medications on radial artery spasm in patients undergoing transradial coronary procedures: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2018; 16(3): 738–51.
  • 9. Ruiz-Salmerón RJ, Mora R, Vélez-Gimón M, Ortiz J, Fernández C, Vidal B, et al. Radial artery spasm in transradial cardiac catheterization. Assessment of factors related to its occurrence, and of its consequences during follow-up. [Article in Spanish]. Rev Esp Cardiol 2005; 58(5): 504–11.
  • 10. Ercan S, Unal A, Altunbas G, Kaya H, Davutoglu V, Yuce M, et al. Anxiety score as a risk factor for radial artery vasospasm during radial interventions: a pilot study. Angiology 2014; 65(1): 67–70.
  • 11. Galli M, Di Tano G, Mameli S, Butti E, Politi A, Zerboni S, et al. Ad hoc transradial coronary angioplasty strategy: experience and results in a single centre. Int J Cardiol 2003; 92(2-3): 275–80.
  • 12. Valgimigli M, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, Vranckx P, Rothenbühler M, Tebaldi M, et al. Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018; 392(10150): 835–48.
  • 13. Michael TT, Alomar M, Papayannis A, Mogabgab O, Patel VG, Rangan BV, et al. A randomized comparison of the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary artery bypass graft angiography and intervention: the RADIAL-CABG Trial (RADIAL Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Angiography and Intervention). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6(11): 1138–44.
  • 14. Georges JL, Belle L, Meunier L, Dechery T, Khalifé K, Pecheux M, et al; RAY’ACT Investigators. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention is associated with lower patient radiation exposure in high-radial-volume centres: Insights from the RAY’ACT-1 study. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2017; 110(3): 179–87.
  • 15. Ferrante G, Rao SV, Jüni P, Da Costa BR, Reimers B, Condorelli G, et al. Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Interventions Across the Entire Spectrum of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9(14): 1419–34.
  • 16. Andò G, Cortese B, Russo F, Rothenbühler M, Frigoli E, Gargiulo G, et al; MATRIX Investigators. Acute Kidney Injury After Radial or Femoral Access for Invasive Acute Coronary Syndrome Management: AKI-MATRIX. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 May 11. doi: 10.1016/j. jacc.2017.02.070. [Epub ahead of print]

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.