Faculty Bibliography

Over the past several years, the transradial approach (TRA) for cardiac catheterization has become increasingly adopted in the United States. The increased utilization of the TRA is grounded on 2 decades of research, showing reduced bleeding and vascular complications to complement improved patient quality of life. However, the concern over cost, radiation exposure, and acknowledged "learning curve" has kept the transfemoral approach (TFA) the mainstay of most US catheterization laboratories. More recent larger multi-centered randomized studies have aimed to address outcomes and these concerns between the TR and TF approaches. This article will review the changing trends in TRA in the US, discuss clinical (bleeding and mortality) and non-clinical (quality of life and cost) outcomes from recent randomized studies, and finally discuss certain aspects when it comes to adopting TRA.

The prevention of major bleeding during percutaneous coronary intervention is one of the most widely discussed and often controversial topics within interventional cardiology. The choice of arterial access should be considered a mechanism for bleeding avoidance, and various strategies have been proposed to prevent or lower major bleeding and vascular complications with varying levels of strength. Herein, we review the current literature on arterial access as a bleeding avoidance strategy during percutaneous coronary intervention and its impact on outcome and provide a consensus opinion based on the strength of the evidence supporting various techniques.

A well-established body of evidence demonstrating the advantages of a transradial approach for coronary angiography and intervention has led to worldwide adoption of this technique. In some countries, radial access has replaced femoral access as the dominant access site for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). More recently, numerous randomized controlled trials have compared transradial and transfemoral access in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and have shown that transradial access is associated with lower mortality and less major bleeding. This review examines the advantages of transradial primary PCI for STEMI patients, addresses concerns in adopting this approach for primary PCI, and reviews recommendations on how to start a transradial primary PCI program.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study sought to perform a randomized noninferiority trial of radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization comparing femoral access (FA) with left radial access (LRA) and right radial access (RRA). BACKGROUND:Increased radiation exposure with radial approach compared with femoral approach remains a controversial issue. METHODS:This study randomized 1,493 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization at a tertiary care center to FA, LRA, and RRA in a 1:1:1 fashion. The primary endpoint was air kerma. The secondary endpoints included dose-area product, fluoroscopy time and operator dose per procedure, number of cineangiograms, and number of catheters. RESULTS:Baseline and procedural characteristics were similar among groups. No significant differences were observed in air kerma (medians: FA: 421 mGy [interquartile range (IQR): 337 to 574 mGy], LRA: 454 mGy [IQR: 331 to 643 mGy], and RRA: 483 mGy [IQR: 382 to 592 mGy], p = 0.146), dose-area product (medians: FA: 25.5 Gy cm(2) [IQR: 19.6 to 34.5 Gy cm(2)], LRA: 26.6 Gy cm(2) [IQR: 19.5 to 37.5 Gy cm(2)], and RRA: 27.7 Gy cm(2) [IQR: 21.9 to 34.4 Gy cm(2)], p = 0.40), or fluoroscopy time (medians: FA: 1.3 min [IQR: 1.0 to 1.7 min], LRA: 1.3 min [IQR: 1.0 to 1.7 min], and RRA: 1.32 min [IQR: 1.0 to 1.7 min], p = 0.19) among the 3 access sites. Median operator exposure was higher in the LRA group (3 mrem [IQR: 2 to 5 mrem], p = 0.001 vs. FA, and p = 0.0001 vs. RRA) compared with the FA (2 mrem [IQR: 2 to 4 mrem] and RRA groups (3 mrem [IQR: 2 to 5 mrem]). CONCLUSIONS:Radiation exposure to patients was similar during diagnostic coronary angiography with FA, RRA, and LRA. However, LRA was associated with significantly higher operator radiation exposure than were FA and RRA procedures. (Randomized Evaluation of Vascular Entry Site and Radiation Exposure [REVERE]; NCT01677481).