Radial access protects from contrast media induced nephropathy after cardiac catheterization procedures.

OBJECTIVES: To assess, whether cardiac catheterization via radial access prevents contrast-induced nephropathy. BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a major clinical problem which accounts for more than 10% of acute kidney injury cases in hospitalized patients. Protective measures such as the infusion of isotonic saline solution or acetylcysteine have not consistently been proven to prevent acute kidney injury (AKI). However, there is growing evidence that radial access for coronary angiography and coronary intervention is associated with a lower incidence of AKI compared to femoral access. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a retrospective monocentric analysis, 2937 patients that had undergone cardiac catheterization were examined. Up to 2013, coronary intervention was performed primarily via the femoral artery in our hospital; thereafter, interventions were primarily done via the radial artery. In the cohort under study, 1141 patients had received catheterization using the radial access while 1796 were examined via the femoral artery. No significant differences were found in the two groups regarding the amount of iodinated contrast medium applied [femoral group: 180 (120-260) ml; radial group: 180 (120-250) ml; P = 0.438]. A total of 400 (13.6%) patients developed acute kidney injury (AKI) after cardiac catheterization (85.3% AKI stage 1; 12.8% AKI stage 2; 2% AKI stage 3). AKI was significantly less frequent in patients that had received radial access compared to patients with femoral access (10.1 vs. 15.9%, P < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that patient age (1.03/year; 95% CI 1.02-1.04/year; P < 0.001), the amount of contrast media applied (OR 1.003/ml; 95% CI 1.002-1.004/ml; P < 0.001), acute coronary syndrome (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.52-2.66; P < 0.001), CKD (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.50-1.70; P < 0.001), pre-existing heart failure (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00-1.42 P = 0.007), previous myocardial infarction (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.15-1.49; P = 0.001), diabetes (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.41; P = 0.020) and serum creatinine before the procedure (1.45/mg/dl; 95% CI 1.24-1.69/mg/dl; P < 0.001) were important risk factors for the occurrence of AKI. Our analysis points to a significant risk reduction using radial access (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.51-0.83; P < 0.001). Interestingly, this reduction in risk was also evident in patients with CKD (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.41-0.87; P = 0.007). The superiority of radial access was particularly obvious in the subgroup of patients with acute coronary syndrome (13.1% AKI in the radial access group vs. 23.6% AKI in the femoral access group, OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.34-0.81; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that cardiac catheterization using radial access bears significantly lower risk of AKI than cardiac catheterization via femoral access. The advantage of radial access in acute coronary syndrome regarding morbidity and mortality could partly be explained by the here demonstrated reduced risk for AKI. Thus, radial access should be preferred in patients at risk for AKI.

Large-scale experience with an anchorless vascular closure device in a real-life clinical setting.

AIMS: This study was designed to evaluate safety and effectiveness of the vascular closure device Exoseal (Cordis) for hemostatic control following cardiac catheterization in a real-life clinical setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, single-center study enrolled n = 2,031 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography via the femoral artery ± PCI (n = 801). Patients were excluded if they had radial access, percutaneous repair of structural heart disease, or if they had severe peripheral artery disease. If clinical abnormalities were discovered at the access site, color Doppler ultrasound was performed. The composite primary endpoint was defined as bleeding/vascular complications and device failure, and it was experienced by 5.4 % (n = 110) of patients. The most frequent complications were pseudoaneurysm (2.9 %, n = 58) and access-site hematoma >6 cm (1.8 %, n = 37). The overall device failure rate was 0.7 % (n = 14). Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the strongest independent predictors of bleeding/vascular complications and/or device failure were procedure duration (OR 2.1, CI 1.4-3.2), PCI (OR 2.7, CI 1.7-4.2), GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (OR 2.9, CI 1.5-5.7), and age (OR 2.2, CI 1.4-3.5). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that Exoseal was safe in a broad collective of patients. However, lengthy procedures, PCIs, the use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and elderly patients require special attention.