Evaluating Endoscopic Ipsilateral Endonasal Corridor Approaches to the Anterolateral Wall of the Maxillary Sinus: A Computerized Tomography Study

Abstract Introduction The endoscopic access to lesions in the anterolateral wall of the maxillary sinus is a challenging issue; therefore, the evaluation of access should be performed. Objective To assess the accessibility of three endoscopic ipsilateral endonasal corridors. Methods Three corridors were created in each of the 30 maxillary sinuses from 19 head cadavers. Accessing the anterolateral wall of the maxillary sinus was documented with a straight stereotactic navigator probe at the level of the nasal floor and of the axilla of the inferior turbinate. Results At level of the nasal floor, the prelacrimal approach, the modified endoscopic Denker approach, and the endoscopic Denker approach allowed mean radial access to the anterolateral maxillary sinus wall of 42.6 ± 7.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.9-45.3), 56.0 ± 6.1 (95%CI: 53.7-58.3), and 60.1 ± 6.2 (95%CI: 57.8-62.4), respectively. Furthermore, these approaches provided more lateral access to the maxillary sinus at the level of the axilla of the inferior turbinate, with mean radial access of 45.8 ± 6.9 (95%CI: 43.3-48.4) for the prelacrimal approach, 59.8 ± 4.7 (95% CI:58.1--61.6) for the modified endoscopic Denker approach, and 63.6 ± 5.5 (95%CI: 61.6-65.7) for the endoscopic Denker approach. The mean radial access in each corridor, either at the level of the nasal floor or the axilla of the inferior turbinate, showed a statistically significant difference in all comparison approaches (p < 0.05). Conclusions The prelacrimal approach provided a narrow radial access, which allows access to anteromedial lesions of the maxillary sinus, whereas the modified endoscopic Denker and the endoscopic Denker approaches provided more lateral radial access and improved operational feasibility on far anterolateral maxillary sinus lesions.

Transradial access for coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures: Consensus statement and recommendations for India: Advancing Complex CoronariES Sciences through TransRADIAL intervention in India – ACCESS RADIAL™: Clinical consensus recommendations in collaboration with Cardiological Society of India (CSI)

Radial access for cardiac catheterization and intervention in India has been growing steadily over the last decade with favorable clinical outcomes. However, its usage by interventional cardiologists varies greatly among Indian operators and hospitals due to large geographic disparities in health care delivery systems and practice patterns. It also remains unclear whether the advantages, as well as limitations of transradial (TR) intervention (as reported in the western literature), are applicable to developing countries like India or not. An evidence-based review involving various facets of radial procedure for cardiac catheterization, including practical, patient-related and technical issues was conducted by an expert committee that formed a part of Advancing Complex CoronariES Sciences through TransRADIAL intervention (ACCESS RADIAL™) Advisory Board. Emerging challenges in redefining TR management based on evidence supporting practices were discussed to formulate these final recommendations through consensus.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarian patients / Intervención coronaria percutánea en pacientes octogenarios

Abstract: Introduction: Octogenarian patients are usually excluded from studies in which the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is compared. Objective: Our aim is to compare this procedure among octogenarians and those younger; in addition to comparing the radial access (RA) and femoral access (FA) in patients older than 80 years. Material and methods: This is a retrospective, observational, comparative, longitudinal, single-center study. Patients who have been referred for PCI, from 2010 to 2016 in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico were included. The groups were divided into the octogenarians group (OG) and a group of younger than 80 years (YG). Results: A total of 1,282 patients were collected, of whom 92 were of the OG and 1,190 were of the YG. The FA was the most used. Similar levels of radiation time (RT), radiation dose (DR), and amount of administered contrast medium (CM), vascular complications (VC) and mortality between the two groups were found. However, the OG had more length of hospital stay (LHS). Comparing the FA against RA in the OG there were no differences in RT, RD, amount of CM, VC, death and LHS. Conclusion: The results are similar between the two groups, with a greater tendency to more LHS in the OG. There were not significant differences between the RA and FA in the OG, except that LHS in the FA.

Resumen: Introducción: Los pacientes octogenarios son usualmente excluidos de los estudios en los cuales se compara la efectividad de las intervenciones coronarias percutáneas. Objetivo: Nuestro objetivo es comparar este procedimiento entre los pacientes octogenarios y aquéllos más jóvenes; además se compara el abordaje radial y el abordaje femoral en los pacientes octogenarios. Material y métodos: Éste es un estudio retrospectivo, observacional, comparativo, longitudinal, unicéntrico. Se realizó con aquellos pacientes que se refirieron para realización de un intervencionismo coronario percutáneo, en Monterrey, Nuevo León, México del 2010 al 2016. Los grupos se dividieron en el grupo de pacientes octogenarios y el grupo de pacientes menores de 80 años. Resultados: Se recabó un total de 1,282 pacientes, de los cuales 92 eran pacientes octogenarios, mientras que 1,190 fueron más jóvenes. En ambos el abordaje femoral fue el más utilizado. Se encontraron valores similares de dosis de radiación, tiempo de radiación, cantidad de contraste administrado, complicaciones vasculares y mortalidad entre los dos grupos. Sin embargo, los pacientes octogenarios tuvieron más días de estancia hospitalaria. Al comparar el abordaje femoral y el radial en octogenarios no se encontraron diferencias en dosis de radiación, tiempo de radiación, cantidad de medio de contraste, complicaciones vasculares, muerte y días de estancia hospitalaria. Conclusiones: Los resultados fueron similares entre ambos grupos de edad, con una mayor tendencia de estancia hospitalaria en octogenarios. No se encontraron diferencias significativas entre ambos abordajes en pacientes octogenarios, a excepción de mayores días de estancia hospitalaria en el abordaje femoral.

Eficacia y seguridad del acceso radial y femoral en pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo llevados a intervencionismo coronario Redial - Registro de intervención por vía radial / Efficacy and safety of radial and femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary intervention Redial - Registration of intervention by radial access

Introducción: el acceso transradial ha surgido como una alternativa atractiva a la vía femoral para realizar coronariografías e intervenciones coronarias. Describimos nuestra experiencia, y comparamos el acceso radial con una cohorte de acceso femoral en un periodo de tiempo. Objetivo: identificar las complicaciones vasculares relacionadas con la coronariografía en pacientes de la unidad de dolor torácico de una institución de alta complejidad de la ciudad de Medellín. Materiales y métodos: estudio epidemiológico observacional, analítico, de una cohorte retrospectiva de pacientes mayores de 18 años que ingresaron a la unidad de dolor torácico del hospital Universitario San Vicente Fundación con diagnóstico de síndrome coronario agudo con y sin elevación del ST, y a los cuales se les realizó coronariografía por acceso radial y femoral. Resultados: se evaluaron 675 pacientes, de los cuales 59.6% (n=402) se les realizó acceso femoral y 40.4% (n=273) acceso radial con diferencias, en relación al sexo y aspectos personales como el tabaquismo y la enfermedad renal crónica. Respecto a las complicaciones según el tipo de acceso, se hallaron diferencias significativas en la presencia de hematoma femoral (OR= 5.6; IC 95%: 1.28; 24.63) y el espasmo radial (p<0.05). Conclusión: los accesos radial y femoral son seguros y efectivos, sin embargo la disminución significativa de las complicaciones vasculares puede ser una razón para preferir el acceso radial como técnica de elección en la mayoría de estos pacientes. (Acta Med Colomb 2015; 40: 209-217).

Introduction: the transradial access has emerged as an attractive alternative to the femoral access for coronary angiography and coronary interventions. We describe our experience, and compare the radial access with a cohort of femoral access in a time period. Objective: to identify vascular complications related to coronary angiography in patients of the chest pain unit of a high complexity institution of the city of Medellin. Materials and Methods: epidemiological, observational, analytical study of a retrospective cohort of patients over 18 years admitted to the chest pain unit of the University Hospital San Vicente Foundation with diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome with and without ST elevation in which coronary angiography by radial and femoral access was performed. Results: 675 patients were evaluated. 59.6% (n = 402) underwent femoral access, and 40.4% (n = 273) radial access with differences in relation to sex and personal aspects such as smoking and chronic kidney disease. Regarding complications according to the type of access, significant differences were found in regard to the presence of femoral hematoma (OR = 5.6; 95% CI: 1.28; 24.63) and radial artery spasm (p <0.05). Conclusion: the radial and femoral accesses are safe and effective; however, the significant decrease in vascular complications may be a reason to prefer the radial access as technique of choice in most of these patients. (Acta Med Colomb 2015; 40: 209-217).

Predictors of Conversion from Radial Into Femoral Access in Cardiac Catheterization / Fatores Preditivos da Conversão de Acesso Radial em Femoral no Cateterismo Cardíaco

Background: Fewer bleeding complications and early ambulation make radial access a privileged route for cardiac catheterization. However, transradial (TR) approach is not always successful, requiring its conversion into femoral access. Objectives: To evaluate the rate of conversion from radial into femoral access in cardiac catheterization and to identify its predictors. Methods: Prospective dual-center registry, including 7632 consecutive patients undergoing catheterization via the radial access between Jan/2009 and Oct/2012. We evaluated the incidence of conversion into femoral access and its predictors by logistic regression analysis. Results: The patients’ mean age was 66 ± 11 years, and 32% were women. A total of 2969 procedures (38.4%) were percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), and the most used first intention arterial access was the right radial artery (97.6%). Radial access failure rate was 5.8%. Independent predictors of conversion from radial into femoral access were the use of short introducer sheaths (OR 3.047, CI: 2.380-3.902; p < 0.001), PCI (OR 1.729, CI: 1.375-2.173; p < 0.001), female sex (OR 1.569, CI: 1.234-1.996; p < 0.001), multivessel disease (OR 1.457, CI: 1.167-1.819; p = 0.001), body surface area (BSA) ≤ 1.938 (OR 1.448, CI: 1.120-1.871; p = 0.005) and age > 66 years (OR 1.354, CI: 1.088-1.684; p = 0.007). Conclusion: Transradial approach for cardiac catheterization has a high success rate and the need for its conversion into femoral access in this cohort was low. Female sex, older age, smaller BSA, the use of short introducer sheaths, multivessel disease and PCI were independent predictors of conversion into femoral access. .

Fundamento: Menos complicações hemorrágicas e deambulação precoce fazem do acesso radial uma via privilegiada para cateterismo cardíaco. Entretanto, a abordagem transradial (TR) nem sempre é bem-sucedida, sendo necessária a sua conversão em acesso femoral. Objetivo: Avaliar a taxa de conversão do acesso radial em femoral no cateterismo cardíaco e identificar seus fatores preditivos. Métodos: Registro prospectivo de dois centros, incluindo 7.632 pacientes consecutivos submetidos a cateterização via acesso radial entre janeiro de 2009 e outubro de 2012. Avaliou-se a incidência de conversão em acesso femoral e seus fatores preditivos através de análise de regressão logística. Resultados: A idade média dos pacientes foi de 66 ± 11 anos, sendo 32% deles mulheres. Houve 2.969 (38.4%) intervenções coronarianas percutâneas (ICP),sendo a artéria radial direita a primeira escolha mais usada (97,6%). A taxa de insucesso do acesso radial foi de 5,8%. Fatores preditivos independentes da conversão do acesso radial em femoral foram o uso de bainhas introdutoras curtas (OR 3,047; IC: 2,380-3,902; p < 0,001), ICP (OR 1,729; IC: 1,375-2,173; p < 0,001), sexo feminino (OR 1,569;IC: 1,234-1,996; p < 0,001), doença multiarterial (OR 1,457; IC: 1,167-1,819; p = 0,001), área de superfície corporal(ASC) ≤ 1,938 (OR 1,448; IC: 1,120-1,871; p = 0,005) e idade > 66 anos (OR 1,354; IC: 1,088-1,684; p = 0,007). Conclusão: A abordagem transradial para cateterismo cardíaco tem alta taxa de sucesso e a necessidade de sua conversão em acesso femoral nesta coorte foi baixa. Os fatores preditivos independentes de sua conversão em acesso femoral foram: sexo feminino; idade mais avançada; menor ASC; uso de bainhas introdutoras curtas; doença multiarterial; e ICP. .

Acceso radial durante la angioplastía primaria en el infarto agudo al miocardio / Radial artery access to perform primary angyoplasty in acute myocardial infarction

Introdución: El acceso radial (AR) ha demostrado reducir las complicaciones vasculares asociadas a la coronariografía y angioplastía coronaria; sin embargo, su rol en la angioplastía primaria (AP) durante el infarto agudo al miocardio con supradesnivel del segmento ST (IAM c/SDST) es muy escasa. En diciembre de 2007, nuestro equipo adoptó esta técnica como primera opción durate la AP Objetivo. Estudiar si el AR durante la AP es tan rápido y seguro como el acceso femoral (AF). Métodos: Utilizando el registro de nuestro laboratorio, analizamos todos los pacientes con IAM c/SDST que fueron tratados con AP en nuestro hospital en el período Septiembre 2005 - Agosto 2009, y luego de identificar los pacientes de acuerdo al AF y AR, comparamos el tiempo "puerta-balón", los resultados an-giográficos, el éxito clínico y las complicaciones relacionadas al acceso. El seguimiento se efectuó a través de las visitas médicas y vía telefónica. Los valores se muestran como promedio +/- DS. Resultados: En el periodo estudiado, en 354 (75 por ciento) pacientes se utilizó AF y en 118 (25 por ciento) el AR. La edad promedio de ambos grupos fue similar, 61+/-12 años en el grupo con AF vs 62+/-12 años en AR (p=ns) y no hubo diferencias en las características clínicas de los grupos. El tiempo "puerta-balón" fue 62+/-37 minutos vs 61+/-29 minutos en AF y AR respectivamente (p=ns) con una tasa de éxito superior al 94 por ciento en ambo grupos. En el grupo de AF hubo 3 por ciento de complicaciones vasculares vs 0 por ciento en AR. La mortalidad global a 30 días fue 5,1 por ciento en el grupo de AF y de 4,0 por ciento en AR (p=ns). Conclusión: El acceso radial para la AP permite abrir la arteria culpable en tiempos similares al AF y con una menor incidencia de complicaciones vasculares.

Background: Radial access (RA) has been shown to help reduce vascular complications of coronary ar-teriography and angioplasty (PTCA). However, little experience has been reported with RA to perform primary PTCA in ST elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). Since December 2007, we selected RA as a first option for primary PTCA in STEMI. Aim: to determine whether RA is as effective, safe and expeditious as femoral access (FA) in primary PTCA for STEMI Method: we performed a retrospective review of our database of all patients undergoing primary PTCA in our laboratory from Sept 2005 through August 2009. We compared all patients who had a PTCA using a FA to those in whom the RA was used. The door to balloon time, angiographic results, clinical success rate and complications related to the vascular access were compared between groups. Follow-up was based con clinical visits and phone calls. Values are expressed as mean and SD. Results: 375 patients had an FA (75 percent) and 118 an RA (25 percent). Mean age was similar in both groups (61+/-12 vs 62+/-12, respectively, NS). Selected clinical characteristics did no differ between groups. Door to balloon time was 62+/-37 min for FA and 61+/-29 min for RA (NS). Clinical success rate exceeded 94 percent in both groups. Vascular complications occurred in 3 percent in the AF group. No vascular complications were observed in the RA group. Thirty day overall mortality rates were 5.2 percent in FA and 4.0 percent in RA (NS). Conclusion: Radial access can be used for primary PTCA in STEMI with similar success rates and lower incidence of vascular complications, when compared to the traditional femoral access.

The Feasibility of 5-French Transradial Coronary Intervention, as Compared with a 6-French Approach, for Treating Chronic Total Occlusion

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have shown that transradial coronary intervention (TRI) is feasible for percutaneous revascularization of chronic total occlusion (CTO). We investigated the feasibility and safety of using a 5-French catheter (5F) TRI for CTO and we compared it with that of using a 6F catheter TRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifteen patients (117 lesions) who underwent TRI for CTO (TIMI 0 or 1 for more than 2 months) were prospectively registered in this study from April 2002 to July 2004 (54 patients for the 5F and 61 patients for the 6F). The clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics were evaluated and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: No major difference was noted for the clinical characteristics between the 2 groups. Coronary angiography showed a shorter occlusion length (5F: 8.8+/-7.6 mm, 6F: 14.7+/-12.7, p=0.008) and a higher incidence of the tapered type of entry morphology (5F: 74%, 6F: 56%, p=0.042) in the 5F group. A deep-seating technique was used more often in the 5F group (5F: 83%, 6F: 51%, p<0.001). The procedural success rate was similar between the 2 groups (5F: 82%, 6F: 86%, p<0.54). The most common cause of procedural failure for both groups was failure to pass the guidewire. The occlusion duration, lesion length and lesion angulation were the statistically significant predictors of procedural failure. No major procedural or local complication was noted. Minor hematoma occurred in 2 patients and no radial artery occlusion was noted. CONCLUSION: A 5F catheter TRI may be feasible and safe to use for a selected group of CTO lesions.

The Feasibility of Percutaneous Transradial Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion

We evaluated the feasibility of the transradial coronary intervention (TRCI) in 85 consecutive patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO). Clinical, angiographic and procedural factors were compared between the success and failure groups. An overall success rate of 65.5% (57 of 87 lesions) was achieved with TRCI, and the most common cause of failure was an inability to pass the lesion with a guidewire. A multivariate analysis demonstrated that the most significant predictor of failure was the duration of occlusion (OR 1.064 per month, 95% CI 1.005 to 1.126, p = 0.03). The procedural success rate improved with use of new-generation hydrophilic guidewires. The 6 Fr guiding catheters were used in the majority of the 70 cases (81%). Five cases were crossed over to a femoral artery approach due to engagement failure of the guiding catheter into the coronary ostium because of severe subclavian tortuosity and stenosis in two cases, radial artery looping in one case, and poor guiding support in two cases. There were no major entry site complications. In conclusion, the radial artery might be a feasible vascular route in coronary interventions for CTO, with comparable procedural success and no access site complications.