Impact of sex differences on the feasibility and safety of distal radial access for coronary procedures: a multicenter prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Conventional transradial access in women is associated with a lower success rate and a higher incidence of spasm compared to men. To date, the effect of sex on the performance of distal radial access (DRA) has not been fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of sex on catheterization success and other performance parameters of DRA procedures. METHODS: This is a prospective three-center observational study. From August 2020 to September 2022, data from all consecutive patients who underwent DRA for coronary procedures were collected. RESULTS: A total of 868 procedures were registered and stratified into two groups according to sex: women (n = 258) and men (n = 610). Female patients had less favorable baseline characteristics than male patients in terms of absent or weak pulse (29% vs. 17%; P  < 0.001), distal radial diameter (2.2 ±â€…0.3 vs. 2.4 ±â€…0.4 mm; P  < 0.001) and proximal radial diameter (2.5 ±â€…0.7 vs. 2.7 ±â€…0.7 mm; P  = 0.001). No differences in success rates were found in women compared to men (94.2% vs. 96.6%; P  = 0.135), with a higher presence of arterial spasm in women (5.8% vs. 3.0%; P  = 0.044). The preprocedural ultrasound evaluation was the only predictor of DRA success [odds ratio = 20.0 (4.739-83.333); P  < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing coronary procedures, the success rate of DRA was high regardless of sex, with a higher incidence of arterial spasm in women.

Comparison of one-catheter strategy versus conventional two-catheter strategy on the volume of radiological contrast and diagnostic coronary catheterization performance by transradial access: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background: One-catheter strategy, based in multipurpose catheters, allows exploring both coronary arteries with a single catheter. This strategy could simplify coronary catheterization and reduce the volume of contrast administration, by reducing radial spasm. To date, observational studies showed greater benefits regarding contrast consumption and catheterization performance than controlled trials. The aim of this work is to perform the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) to adequately quantify the benefits of one-catheter strategy, with multipurpose catheters, over conventional two-catheter strategy on contrast consumption, and catheterization performance. Methods: A search in PubMed, CINALH, and CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify randomized trials comparing one-catheter and two-catheter strategies. The primary outcome was volume of iodinated contrast administrated. Secondary endpoints, evaluating coronary catheterization performance included: arterial spasm, fluoroscopy time, and procedural time. Results: Five RCT were included for the final analysis, with a total of 1599 patients (802 patients with one-catheter strategy and 797 patients with two-catheter strategy). One-catheter strategy required less administration of radiological contrast (difference in means [DiM] [95% confidence interval (CI)]; -3.831 mL [-6.165 mL to -1.496 mL], p = 0.001) as compared to two-catheter strategy. Furthermore, less radial spasm (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.484 [0.363 to 0.644], p < 0.001) and less procedural time (DiM [95% CI], -72.471 s [-99.694 s to -45.249 s], p < 0.001) were observed in one-catheter strategy. No differences on fluoroscopy time were observed. Conclusions: One-catheter strategy induces a minimal reduction on radiological contrast administration but improves coronary catheterization performance by reducing arterial spasm and procedural time as compared to conventional two-catheter strategy.

Antecedentes: La estrategia de catéter único permite explorar ambas coronarias con un solo catéter. Nuestro objetivo es realizar la primera revisión sistemática y meta-análisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados para cuantificar adecuadamente los beneficios de la estrategia de catéter único, con catéteres multipropósito, sobre la estrategia convencional de dos catéteres. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda en PubMed, CINALH y CENTRAL, identificando ensayos aleatorizados que compararan estrategias de un catéter y dos catéteres. El resultado primario fue volumen de contraste administrado. Los secundarios, que evaluaron el rendimiento del cateterismo, incluyeron: espasmo radial, tiempo de fluoroscopia y de procedimiento. Resultados: Se incluyeron cinco ensayos, totalizando 1,599 pacientes (802 con estrategia de un catéter y 797 con estrategia de dos catéteres). La estrategia de catéter único requirió menos contraste (diferencia-de-medias; −3.831 mL [−6.165 mL a −1.496 mL], p = 0.001), presentando menos espasmo radial (odds ratio, 0.484 [0.363 a 0.644], p < 0.001) y menos tiempo de procedimiento (diferencia-de-medias; −72.471 s [−99.694 s a −45.249 s], p < 0.001). No hubo diferencias en el tiempo de fluoroscopia. Conclusiones: La estrategia de catéter único induce una reducción mínima en la administración de contraste, pero mejora el rendimiento del cateterismo al reducir el espasmo radial y el tiempo de procedimiento en comparación con la estrategia convencional.

Comparison of one-catheter strategy versus conventional two-catheter strategy on the volume of radiological contrast and diagnostic coronary catheterization performance by transradial access: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials / Comparación de la estrategia de catéter único versus la estrategia convencional de dos catéteres sobre el volumen de contraste radiológico y el rendimiento del cateterismo coronario diagnóstico por acceso transradial: una revisión sistemática y meta-análisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados

Abstract Background: One-catheter strategy, based in multipurpose catheters, allows exploring both coronary arteries with a single catheter. This strategy could simplify coronary catheterization and reduce the volume of contrast administration, by reducing radial spasm. To date, observational studies showed greater benefits regarding contrast consumption and catheterization performance than controlled trials. The aim of this work is to perform the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) to adequately quantify the benefits of one-catheter strategy, with multipurpose catheters, over conventional two-catheter strategy on contrast consumption, and catheterization performance. Methods: A search in PubMed, CINALH, and CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify randomized trials comparing one-catheter and two-catheter strategies. The primary outcome was volume of iodinated contrast administrated. Secondary endpoints, evaluating coronary catheterization performance included: arterial spasm, fluoroscopy time, and procedural time. Results: Five RCT were included for the final analysis, with a total of 1599 patients (802 patients with one-catheter strategy and 797 patients with two-catheter strategy). One-catheter strategy required less administration of radiological contrast (difference in means [DiM] [95% confidence interval (CI)]; −3.831 mL [−6.165 mL to −1.496 mL], p = 0.001) as compared to two-catheter strategy. Furthermore, less radial spasm (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.484 [0.363 to 0.644], p < 0.001) and less procedural time (DiM [95% CI], −72.471 s [−99.694 s to −45.249 s], p < 0.001) were observed in one-catheter strategy. No differences on fluoroscopy time were observed. Conclusions: One-catheter strategy induces a minimal reduction on radiological contrast administration but improves coronary catheterization performance by reducing arterial spasm and procedural time as compared to conventional two-catheter strategy.

Resumen Antecedentes: La estrategia de catéter único permite explorar ambas coronarias con un solo catéter. Nuestro objetivo es realizar la primera revisión sistemática y meta-análisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados para cuantificar adecuadamente los beneficios de la estrategia de catéter único, con catéteres multipropósito, sobre la estrategia convencional de dos catéteres. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda en PubMed, CINALH y CENTRAL, identificando ensayos aleatorizados que compararan estrategias de un catéter y dos catéteres. El resultado primario fue volumen de contraste administrado. Los secundarios, que evaluaron el rendimiento del cateterismo, incluyeron: espasmo radial, tiempo de fluoroscopia y de procedimiento. Resultados: Se incluyeron cinco ensayos, totalizando 1,599 pacientes (802 con estrategia de un catéter y 797 con estrategia de dos catéteres). La estrategia de catéter único requirió menos contraste (diferencia-de-medias; −3.831 mL [−6.165 mL a −1.496 mL], p = 0.001), presentando menos espasmo radial (odds ratio, 0.484 [0.363 a 0.644], p < 0.001) y menos tiempo de procedimiento (diferencia-de-medias; −72.471 s [−99.694 s a −45.249 s], p < 0.001). No hubo diferencias en el tiempo de fluoroscopia. Conclusiones: La estrategia de catéter único induce una reducción mínima en la administración de contraste, pero mejora el rendimiento del cateterismo al reducir el espasmo radial y el tiempo de procedimiento en comparación con la estrategia convencional.

Impact of One-Catheter Strategy with TIG I Catheter on Coronary Catheterization Performance and Economic Costs.

BACKGROUND: Coronary angiography with two catheters is the traditional strategy for diagnostic coronary procedures. TIG I catheter permits to cannulate both coronary arteries, avoiding exchanging catheters during coronary angiography by transradial access. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of one-catheter strategy, by avoiding catheter exchange, on coronary catheterization performance and economic costs. METHODS: Transradial coronary diagnostic procedures conducted from January 2013 to June 2017 were collected. One-catheter strategy (TIG I catheter) and two-catheter strategy (left and right Judkins catheters) were compared. The volume of iodinated contrast administered was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included radial spasm, procedural duration (fluoroscopy time) and exposure to ionizing radiation (dose-area product and air kerma). Direct economic costs were also evaluated. For statistical analyses, two-tailed p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: From a total of 1,953 procedures in 1,829 patients, 252 procedures were assigned to one-catheter strategy and 1,701 procedures to two-catheter strategy. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. One-catheter strategy required less iodinated contrast [primary endpoint; (60-105)-mL vs. 92 (64-120)-mL; p < 0.001] than the two-catheter strategy. Also, the one-catheter group presented less radial spasm (5.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.022) and shorter fluoroscopy time [3.9 (2.2-8.0)-min vs. 4.8 (2.9-8.3)-min, p = 0.001] and saved costs [149 (140-160)-€/procedure vs. 171 (160-183)-€/procedure; p < 0.001]. No differences in dose-area product and air kerma were detected between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: One-catheter strategy, with TIG I catheter, improves coronary catheterization performance and reduces economic costs compared to traditional two-catheter strategy in patients referred for coronary angiography.

Impact of One-Catheter Strategy with TIG I Catheter on Coronary Catheterization Performance and Economic Costs / Impacto da Estratégia de um Cateter com Cateter TIG I no Desempenho da Coronariografia por Cateterismo e Custos Econômicos

Abstract Background: Coronary angiography with two catheters is the traditional strategy for diagnostic coronary procedures. TIG I catheter permits to cannulate both coronary arteries, avoiding exchanging catheters during coronary angiography by transradial access. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of one-catheter strategy, by avoiding catheter exchange, on coronary catheterization performance and economic costs. Methods: Transradial coronary diagnostic procedures conducted from January 2013 to June 2017 were collected. One-catheter strategy (TIG I catheter) and two-catheter strategy (left and right Judkins catheters) were compared. The volume of iodinated contrast administered was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included radial spasm, procedural duration (fluoroscopy time) and exposure to ionizing radiation (dose-area product and air kerma). Direct economic costs were also evaluated. For statistical analyses, two-tailed p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: From a total of 1,953 procedures in 1,829 patients, 252 procedures were assigned to one-catheter strategy and 1,701 procedures to two-catheter strategy. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. One-catheter strategy required less iodinated contrast [primary endpoint; (60-105)-mL vs. 92 (64-120)-mL; p < 0.001] than the two-catheter strategy. Also, the one-catheter group presented less radial spasm (5.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.022) and shorter fluoroscopy time [3.9 (2.2-8.0)-min vs. 4.8 (2.9-8.3)-min, p = 0.001] and saved costs [149 (140-160)-€/procedure vs. 171 (160-183)-€/procedure; p < 0.001]. No differences in dose-area product and air kerma were detected between the groups. Conclusions: One-catheter strategy, with TIG I catheter, improves coronary catheterization performance and reduces economic costs compared to traditional two-catheter strategy in patients referred for coronary angiography.

Resumo Fundamento: A cineangiocoronariografia com dois cateteres é a estratégia tradicional para procedimentos coronarianos de diagnóstico. O cateter TIG I permite canular ambas as artérias coronárias, evitando a troca de cateteres durante a cineangiocoronariografia por acesso transradial. Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar o impacto da estratégia de um cateter, evitando a troca de cateter, no desempenho da coronariografia por cateterismo e nos seus custos econômicos. Métodos: Foram coletados os procedimentos diagnósticos coronarianos transradiais realizados entre janeiro de 2013 e junho de 2017. A estratégia de um cateter (cateter TIG I) e a estratégia de dois cateteres (cateteres coronários direito e esquerdo de Judkins) foram comparadas. O volume de contraste iodado administrado foi o endpoint primário. Os endpoints secundários eram espasmo radial, duração do procedimento (tempo de fluoroscopia) e exposição a radiações ionizantes (produto dose-área e kerma no ar). Os custos econômicos diretos também foram avaliados. Para as análises estatísticas, valores de p < 0,05 bicaudais foram considerados estatisticamente significativos. Resultados: De um total de 1.953 procedimentos em 1.829 pacientes, 252 procedimentos foram atribuídos à estratégia de um cateter e 1.701 procedimentos à estratégia de dois cateteres. Não houve diferenças nas características basais entre os grupos. A estratégia de um cateter exigiu menos contraste iodado [endpoint primário; (60-105) -mL vs. 92 (64-120) -mL; p < 0,001] em comparação com a estratégia de dois cateteres. Além disso, o grupo da estratégia de um cateter apresentou menos espasmo radial (5,2% vs. 9,3%, p = 0,022) e menor tempo de fluoroscopia [3,9 (2,2-8,0) -min vs. 4,8 (2,9-8,3) -min, p = 0,001] e economia de custos [149 (140-160)-€/procedimento vs. 171 (160-183) -€/procedimento; p < 0,001]. Não foram detectadas diferenças no produto dose-área e kerma no ar entre os grupos. Conclusões: A estratégia de um cateter, com cateter TIG I, melhora o desempenho da coronariografia por cateterismo e reduz os custos econômicos em comparação com a estratégia tradicional de dois cateteres em pacientes encaminhados para cineangiocoronariografia.