Risk score, causes, and clinical impact of failure of transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To study the causes of and to develop a risk score for failure of transradial approach (TRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: TRA-PCI failure has been reported in 5% to 10% of cases. METHODS: TRA-PCI failure was categorized as primary (clinical reasons) or crossover failure. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of TRA-PCI failure, and an integer risk score was developed. RESULTS: From January to June 2010, TRA-PCI was attempted in 1,609 (97.3%) consecutive patients, whereas 45 (2.7%) had primary TRA-PCI failure. Crossover TRA-PCI failure occurred in 30 (1.8%) patients. Causes of primary TRA-PCI failure included chronic radial artery occlusion (11%), previous coronary artery bypass graft (27%), and cardiogenic shock (20%). Causes for crossover TRA-PCI failure included: inadequate puncture in 17 patients (57%); radial artery spasm in 5 (17%); radial loop in 4 (13%); subclavian tortuosity in 2 (7%); and inadequate guide catheter support in 2 (7%) patients. Female sex (odds ratio [OR]: 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.95 to 5.26, p < 0.0001), previous coronary artery bypass graft (OR: 6.1; 95% CI: 3.63 to 10.05, p < 0.0001), and cardiogenic shock (OR: 11.2; 95% CI: 2.78 to 41.2, p = 0.0011) were independent predictors of TRA-PCI failure. Risk score values from 0 to 7 predicted a TRA-PCI failure rate from 2% to 80%. CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume radial center, 2.7% of patients undergoing PCI are excluded from initial TRA on clinical grounds, whereas crossover to femoral approach is required in only 1.8% of the cases. A new simple clinical risk score is developed to predict TRA-PCI failure.

Successive transradial access for coronary procedures: experience of Quebec Heart-Lung Institute.

BACKGROUND: Transradial approach (TRA) for cardiac catheterizations and interventions improves clinical outcomes compared with transfemoral access, and its use is increasing worldwide. However, there are limited data on successive use of same artery for repeat procedures. METHODS: Between May 2010 and May 2011, all consecutive patients undergoing a repeat TRA procedure (≥2) were retrospectively identified. Success rates and reasons for failure to use ipsilateral radial artery for repeat access were identified. RESULTS: A total of 519 patients underwent 1,420 procedures. In 480 patients (92%), right radial artery was used as initial access, and left radial artery, in 39 patients. All patients underwent ≥2 procedures; 218 patients, ≥3; 87 patients, ≥4; 39 patients, ≥5; 19 patients, ≥6; 11 patients, ≥7; and 5 patients, ≥8 procedures. Two patients had, respectively, 9 and 10 procedures. The success rate for second attempt was 93%, 81% for third, and declining to 60% for ≥8. Linear regression analysis estimated a 5% failure rate for each repeat attempt (R(2) = 0.87, P = .007). The main reason for failure was related to clinical radial artery occlusion (RAO) including absent or faint pulse, poor oximetry, and failed puncture. All patients with clinical RAO were asymptomatic. By multivariate analysis, female gender (odds ratio [OR] 3.08, 95% CI 1.78-5.39, P < .0001), prior coronary artery bypass graft (OR 5.26, 95% CI 2.67-10.42, P < .0001), and repeat radial access (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.70-2.76, P < .0001) were independent predictors of radial access failure. CONCLUSION: Successive TRA is both feasible and safe in most cases for up to 10 procedures. However, failure rate for TRA increases with successive procedures, primarily due to clinical RAO. Strategies to minimize the risks of chronic clinical RAO and allow repeat use of ipsilateral radial artery need to be further defined.