ABSTRACT
Objective To explore the safety and feasibility of guiding catheter passing through spasmodic vessels in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via radial artery access by the aid of PCI guiding wire and balloon .Methods The clinical data of 33 coronary artery disease (CAD) patients undergoing PCI via radial artery access with radial artery or (and) brachial artery spasm ( group A ) were retrospectively analyzed .Among all these patients , guiding catheters were delivered through the spasmodic vessels successfully by the aid of PCI guiding wires and balloons .The clinical data of other 38 CAD patients having PCI during the same period performed by other operators via radial artery or ( and ) brachial artery approach and experienced vessel spasm were anlysed as the control ( group B ) .All patients in group B received conventional anti-spasm management during PCI .All vessel spasm was identified by angiography.For patients in group A , a diameter of 0.014 inch guiding wire was chosen to pass through the spasmodic vessel segment carefully and gently .The diameter of balloon should be chosen according to the diameter of guiding catheter .A balloon diameter of 2.0 mm and 2.5 mm was corresponded to 6F and 7F guiding catheter respectively .The balloon was advanced to the tip of guiding catheter , keeping a half in catheter and a half in vessel followed by inflating the balloon with a pressure of 8 atm.The balloon was kept inflated the guiding catheter was pushed in vitro carefully and slowly until the catheter passed through the spasmodic vessel segment .Then the balloon was deflated and pulled out together with PCI guiding wire . Exchanged a diameter of 0.035 inch wire and completed the positioning of guiding catheter .After finishing the PCI, radial or ( and) brachial angiography was performed again to observe if spasm disappeared and to determine if there any contrast medium exudation .For patients in group B , routine approach was applied including administration of nitroglycerine , diltiazem or nitroprusside etc . to relieve vessel spasm. Results The location of vessel spasm was similar in group A and group B ( P=0.150 ) , and the incidence rate of spasm in brachial artery was higher than that in radial artery in both groups .The chance of guiding catheter crossing the spasmodic vessel segment was significantly higher in group A than in group B ( 100%vs.39.5%, P=0.00).In patients whose guiding catheter could pass through the spasmodic vessel segment successfully , time spent in group A was shorter than in group B ( P=0.000 ) .The patient number which time spent was less than five minutes , five to 15 minutes and more than 15 minutes was 30 and 2 ( 90.1%vs.13.3%) , 3 and 7 ( 9.9% vs.46.7%) and 0 and 6 ( 0% vs.40.0%) in group A and in group B respectively.The incidence of forearm hematoma was lower in group A than in group B without statistical difference [6.1%(2/33) vs.18.4%(7/38), P =0.113].Conclusions It is safe and feasible for passing guiding catheter through spasmodic vessels during PCI via radial artery access by the aid of PCI guiding wire and balloon .
ABSTRACT
Introducción: El acceso radial izquierdo (ARI) puede ser una alternativa para la realización de cateterismos coronarios, especialmente en pacientes añosos, donde modificaciones anatómicas pueden dificultar el procedimiento por acceso radial derecho (ARD). Objetivo: Determinar si el uso del ARI en pacientes mayores de 70 años disminuye el tiempo de fluoroscopía y la dosis de radiación durante una coronariografía realizada por operadores entrenados. Métodos: De forma prospectiva se evaluaron pacientes mayores de 70 años sometidos a cateterismo coronario por vía radial por operadores experimentados (>200 procedimiento por vía radial/año), utilizando la misma técnica. El acceso derecho o izquierdo fue asignado de forma aleatoria y se registraron los tiempos de procedimiento, la exposición a radiación, insumos utilizados y apreciación de dificultad del operador. Resultados: Se incluyeron 102 pacientes (ARD 52 / ARI 50). Ambos accesos fueron comparables en los tiempos utilizado para realizar el procedimiento (ARD 782 vs ARI 695 segundos, p= 0,06), aunque hubo un significativo menor tiempo utilizado para canular la arteria coronaria derecha en aquellos pacientes que se accedieron por ARI (206 vs 169 segundos; p= 0,01). No hubo diferencias en la radiación producida por el examen entre ambos grupos (PDA ARD 56,7 vs ARI 59,3 Gy/ cm2, p= 0,09), ni en la cantidad de medio de contraste utilizado (ARD 106,33 (31,04) vs ARI 108,13 (30,23), p=0,24). Se encontró una mayor frecuencia de tortuosidad (25% vs 6%, p <0,01) y de dificultad del procedimiento (58% vs 28%, p <0,01) en el grupo de ARD, principalmente debido al uso de una guía adicional (33% vs 4%, p< 0,01). Conclusión: Tanto el acceso radial derecho como el izquierdo son alternativas factibles para la realización de una coronariografía en pacientes de edad avanzada, no existiendo diferencias entre éstos en el tiempo total del procedimiento. Sin embargo, el ARD en pacientes añosos se asocia más frecuentemente con dificultades a nivel braquiocefálico y mayor uso de guías adicionales para sortear estos desafíos.
Background: Left radial access (LRA) for coronary angiography is an alternative to right radial access (RRA), especially in elderly patients in whom anatomic features may complicate the latter approach. Aim: To determine whether LRA in patients 70 years or older involves a decreased fluoroscopy time and radiation doses in coronary angiography performed by experienced operators. Method: Patients 70 years or older were randomly assigned to undergo coronary angiography through de RRA (n=52) or LRA (n=50). The procedure was performed by experienced operators (>200 radial access coronary angiographies, yearly). Duration of the procedure, exposure to radiation, materials used and subjective evaluation of the difficulty in performing the angiography were assessed. Results: Mean procedure duration was similar between accesses (RRA = 782 vs LRA = 695 seconds (p=0.06). The time to access the right coronary artery was significantly greater for de RRA compared to the LRA (206 vs 169 seconds, respectively, p=0.01). There was no difference in radiation dose (PDA) between groups (RRA = 106.3 ± 31.4 vs LRA = 108.1 ± 30.2 Gy/cm2, p=0.24), nor in the amount of contrast (ARD 106,33 (31,04) vs ARI 108,13 (30,23), p=0,24). Tortuosity (25% vs 6%, p <0,01) and subjective evaluation of procedure difficulties (58% vs 28%, p <0,01) were higher in RRA compared to LRA. An additional guide was needed with RRA compared to LRA (33% were higher in RRA compared to LRA, an additional guide was used in RRA 33% than in LRA (33% vs 4%, p< 0,01). Conclusion: RRA may be used in elderly patients within the same procedure duration compared to LRA. However, RRA is more frequently associated to the presence of tortuosity at the brachio-cephalic site, leading to greater use of additional wire.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Aged , Cardiac Catheterization/methods , Coronary Angiography/methods , Radial Artery , Catheterization, Peripheral , Contrast Media/administration & dosage , Prospective Studies , Radiation Dosage , Time FactorsABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the radiation dose to patients using radial and femoral artery access in coronary angiography (CAG) and intracoronary stenting (IS) ,provide basis for clinical intervention path .Methods The data of 190 samples (43 by femo-ral and 147 by radial) underwent CAG and 54 samples (17 by femoral and 37 by radial) underwent CAG+IS were analyzed retro-spectively .All samples were divided into two groups (radial group and femoral group) by different approach ,and radiation dose in different approach were analyzed .Results There was no significant difference of Dose Area Product (DAP) and Cumulative Dose (CD) using femoral and radial access in CAG (P>0 .05) .Separating two samples which CD were much higher than others ,the mean DAP was 23 .93 Gy · cm2 and the mean CD was 358 .85 mGy using radial vs .27 .06 Gy · cm2 and 369 .57 mGy using femoral , not distinctive either(P=0 .734 ,P=0 .834) .In CAG+IS ,the mean DAP was 82 .64 Gy · cm2 using radial and it was 78 .11 Gy · cm2 using femoral ,and the mean CD was 1 286 .41 mGy using radial and it was 1 267 .76 mGy using femoral .There were no signifi-cant difference in both DAP and CD (P=0 .705 ,P= 0 .919) .Conclusion The radiation dose of DAP and CD were not different when using radial access and using femoral access in CAG and CAG +IS .
ABSTRACT
Resumen: Antecedentes: El acceso radial es una alternativa aceptable y segura para procedimientos endovasculares. Sin embargo no existe una clara evaluación de la integridad de la arteria radial (AR) post procedimiento. Objetivo: Evaluar el impacto funcional y estructural a largo plazo de la punción y colocación del introductor vascular en arteria radial (AR) post intervencionismo coronario. Método: Se estudian 33 pacientes con cardiopatía coronaria a quienes se realizó coronadografía y/o angioplastía vía radial. A los 6-10 meses de seguimiento se analizó las características ecográficas funcionales y estructurales de la AR comparándola con la AR contralateral. Resultados: Con el seguimiento se observan 3 AR ocluidas (9 por ciento). No se encontró un aumento significativo del grosor de la pared a nivel distal (zona de punción), 0,36 +/- 0,22 vs 0,28 +/- 0,08mm; el diámetro fue similar a nivel distal 2,6 +/- 0,7mm vs 2,8 +/- 0,35mm (ns) y proximal 2,8 +/- 0,35 vs 2,5 +/- 0,7mm. No hay diferencia significativa en la velocidad peak sistólica (VPS), en la AR puncionada vs la control 54 +/- 16 vs 50 +/- 14 cm/seg ni en los índices de resistencia 0,83 +/- 0,1 vs 0,87 +/-0,1. Conclusiones: La utilización de la vía radial para intervencionismo coronario ocasiona en un bajo porcentaje la oclusión esta arteria. En las arterias que permanecen permeables no se encontró a largo plazo un impacto sobre las características estructurales ni funcionales.
Background: the radial artery is a common and safe access site for endovascular procedures. There has been no adequate evaluation of the radial artery integrity following the procedure. Aim: to evaluate the long term functional and structural status of the radial artery use for cardiac interventional procedures Methods: 33 patients with coronary artery disease had coronary angiography and/or PTCA using the radial artery approach. After 6-10 months the functional and structural status of the artery was evaluated by comparison to the contra lateral artery Results: Three (9 percent) arteries were occluded. No thickening of the arterial wall distal to the puncture site was observed. Diameters were 2.6 +/- 0.7 vs 2.8 +/- 0.35mm (punctured vs control) distally and 2.8 +/- 0.35 vs 2.5 +/- 0.7mm proximally. Respective peak systolic flow velocities were 54 +/- 16 vs 50 +/- 14 cm/sec (NS) and resistance indexes were 0.83+/-0.1 compared to 0.67+/-0.1 (NS) Conclusion: A low percent of radial arterial occlusion is observed following use of the radial artery following cardiovascular interventions. Patent arteries showed no structural or functional limitations at long term evaluation.