ABSTRACT
Transradial approach (TRA) is the default access site for diagnostic angiography and intervention in many centers. Repeat ipsilateral radial artery access late after index procedure has been associated with failures. It is unknown whether early (≤30 days) and very early (<24 hours) repeat radial access is technically feasible and safe. Study population consisted of consecutive patients undergoing repeat (≥2) procedures within 30 days in a high-volume TRA center. Transradial access failure and resulting femoral approach was categorized as primary (no repeat attempt) or secondary (crossover). Timing of repeat access and reasons for failure were recorded. From November 2012 to December 2014, repeat catheterization by TRA was performed twice in 573 of 626 patients (92%) (median delay 4 [2 to 9] days), 3 times in 29 of 38 (76%) patients (median delay 15 [5 to 26] days), and 4 times in 1 patient within 21 days. When repeat catheterization occurred during the first 24 hours following the index procedure, 53% and 75% of patients had second and third procedures using the same ipsilateral radial artery, respectively. Primary radial failure occurred in 5.8% for second attempt and 13% for a third attempt, whereas crossovers were noted in 2.7% and 2.6%, respectively. Main reasons for failed re-access of ipsilateral radial artery were related either to operator's reluctance to repeat attempt (primary failure) or to issues with puncture site (crossover). In a high-volume TRA center, patients who required repeat catheterization within 24 hours and within the first 30 days had the same radial artery re-accessed in the majority of cases.
Subject(s)
Cardiac Catheterization/methods , Coronary Angiography/methods , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnosis , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods , Aged , Coronary Artery Disease/surgery , Feasibility Studies , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Prognosis , Radial Artery , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Time FactorsABSTRACT
Bivalirudin is an alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH) anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Previously, we have reported clinical benefit on major bleeding in favor of bivalirudin compared with UFH monotherapy but inconclusive results on mortality. Controversial data have been reported in the last 2 years. We conducted an updated meta-analysis including randomized trials and observational studies, which evaluated ischemic and bleeding outcomes for bivalirudin compared with UFH-only during percutaneous coronary intervention. We included 18 observational studies and 12 randomized trials published from 2003 to 2015. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days including death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization and stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and transfusion. Overall, we found a significant risk reduction with bivalirudin for major bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 0.71, p <0.0001) and for transfusion (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.95, p = 0.01) and similar risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12, p = 0.80). However, there was a substantial increased risk of stent thrombosis associated with bivalirudin (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.08, p = 0.009). No impact on mortality was found. Meta-regression analyses on major bleeding suggested that bivalirudin was more effective than UFH at doses >60 IU/kg and independent of radial access. In conclusion, compared with UFH monotherapy, bivalirudin remains associated with less bleeding risk but higher stent thrombosis risk. Further study remains required to define its role in current antithrombotic armamentarium.
