A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention
Objectives. To compare feasibility and safety between ultrasound-guided and conventional distal transradial access (dTRA). Background. Distal transradial access, a new technique for coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), is safe and feasible and will become popular...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Interventional Cardiology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7342732 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832553293472071680 |
|---|---|
| author | Shinsuke Mori Keisuke Hirano Masahiro Yamawaki Norihiro Kobayashi Yasunari Sakamoto Masakazu Tsutsumi Yohsuke Honda Kenji Makino Shigemitsu Shirai Yoshiaki Ito |
| author_facet | Shinsuke Mori Keisuke Hirano Masahiro Yamawaki Norihiro Kobayashi Yasunari Sakamoto Masakazu Tsutsumi Yohsuke Honda Kenji Makino Shigemitsu Shirai Yoshiaki Ito |
| author_sort | Shinsuke Mori |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives. To compare feasibility and safety between ultrasound-guided and conventional distal transradial access (dTRA). Background. Distal transradial access, a new technique for coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), is safe and feasible and will become popular worldwide. Ultrasound-guided dTRA has been advocated to reduce failure rate and access-site complications. However, to date, the comparison of feasibility and safety between ultrasound-guided and conventional dTRA has not been reported. Method. Overall, 137 patients (144 procedures) who underwent CAG or PCI using dTRA between September 2018 and February 2019 were investigated. These patients were classified into two groups: C (dTRA with conventional punctures; 76 patients, 79 procedures) and U (dTRA with ultrasound-guided punctures; 61 patients, 65 procedures) groups. Successful procedural rate, procedural outcomes, and complication rate during hospital stays were compared between the two groups. Results. The procedural success rate was significantly higher in the U group than in the C group (97% vs. 87%, P=0.0384). However, the rate of PCI, puncture time, total fluoroscopy time, the volume of contrast medium, the rate of access-site ecchymosis, and incidence of nerve disorder were similar between the two groups. Additionally, radial artery occlusion after the procedure did not occur in this study. Conclusion. The ultrasound-guided dTRA for CAG or PCI was associated with a lower failure rate than conventional dTRA. However, there were no significant differences in puncture time and complication rate between the two procedures. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-cf5b2847fc3d47d8878e0be439d9f31e |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0896-4327 1540-8183 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Interventional Cardiology |
| spelling | doaj-art-cf5b2847fc3d47d8878e0be439d9f31e2025-02-03T05:54:25ZengWileyJournal of Interventional Cardiology0896-43271540-81832020-01-01202010.1155/2020/73427327342732A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and InterventionShinsuke Mori0Keisuke Hirano1Masahiro Yamawaki2Norihiro Kobayashi3Yasunari Sakamoto4Masakazu Tsutsumi5Yohsuke Honda6Kenji Makino7Shigemitsu Shirai8Yoshiaki Ito9Department of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama City Eastern Hospital, Yokohama, JapanDepartment of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama City Eastern Hospital, Yokohama, JapanDepartment of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama City Eastern Hospital, Yokohama, JapanDepartment of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama City Eastern Hospital, Yokohama, JapanDepartment of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama City Eastern Hospital, Yokohama, JapanDepartment of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama City Eastern Hospital, Yokohama, JapanDepartment of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama City Eastern Hospital, Yokohama, JapanDepartment of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama City Eastern Hospital, Yokohama, JapanDepartment of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama City Eastern Hospital, Yokohama, JapanDepartment of Cardiology, Saiseikai Yokohama City Eastern Hospital, Yokohama, JapanObjectives. To compare feasibility and safety between ultrasound-guided and conventional distal transradial access (dTRA). Background. Distal transradial access, a new technique for coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), is safe and feasible and will become popular worldwide. Ultrasound-guided dTRA has been advocated to reduce failure rate and access-site complications. However, to date, the comparison of feasibility and safety between ultrasound-guided and conventional dTRA has not been reported. Method. Overall, 137 patients (144 procedures) who underwent CAG or PCI using dTRA between September 2018 and February 2019 were investigated. These patients were classified into two groups: C (dTRA with conventional punctures; 76 patients, 79 procedures) and U (dTRA with ultrasound-guided punctures; 61 patients, 65 procedures) groups. Successful procedural rate, procedural outcomes, and complication rate during hospital stays were compared between the two groups. Results. The procedural success rate was significantly higher in the U group than in the C group (97% vs. 87%, P=0.0384). However, the rate of PCI, puncture time, total fluoroscopy time, the volume of contrast medium, the rate of access-site ecchymosis, and incidence of nerve disorder were similar between the two groups. Additionally, radial artery occlusion after the procedure did not occur in this study. Conclusion. The ultrasound-guided dTRA for CAG or PCI was associated with a lower failure rate than conventional dTRA. However, there were no significant differences in puncture time and complication rate between the two procedures.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7342732 |
| spellingShingle | Shinsuke Mori Keisuke Hirano Masahiro Yamawaki Norihiro Kobayashi Yasunari Sakamoto Masakazu Tsutsumi Yohsuke Honda Kenji Makino Shigemitsu Shirai Yoshiaki Ito A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention Journal of Interventional Cardiology |
| title | A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention |
| title_full | A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention |
| title_fullStr | A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention |
| title_short | A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention |
| title_sort | comparative analysis between ultrasound guided and conventional distal transradial access for coronary angiography and intervention |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/7342732 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT shinsukemori acomparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT keisukehirano acomparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT masahiroyamawaki acomparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT norihirokobayashi acomparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT yasunarisakamoto acomparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT masakazutsutsumi acomparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT yohsukehonda acomparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT kenjimakino acomparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT shigemitsushirai acomparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT yoshiakiito acomparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT shinsukemori comparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT keisukehirano comparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT masahiroyamawaki comparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT norihirokobayashi comparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT yasunarisakamoto comparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT masakazutsutsumi comparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT yohsukehonda comparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT kenjimakino comparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT shigemitsushirai comparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention AT yoshiakiito comparativeanalysisbetweenultrasoundguidedandconventionaldistaltransradialaccessforcoronaryangiographyandintervention |