Safety and Efficacy of Radial Artery Access for Peripheral Vascular Intervention: A Single-Center Experience.

Radial artery (RA) access has been increasingly utilized for coronary procedures because of lower rates of access-site complications and improved patient satisfaction. However, limited data are available for RA access for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI). We performed a retrospective review of 143 patients who underwent PVI through RA access from February 2020 to September 2022 at a single institution. Baseline characteristics and follow-up data were ascertained from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Of 491 PVI, 156 (31.8%) were performed through the RA. Anatomical locations for intervention were the femoral (44.8%), iliac (31.1%), popliteal (9.6%) peroneal (2.7%), tibial (9.9%), and subclavian (1.9%) arteries. Procedural access was obtained through the right RA (92.9%), left RA (4.5%), or right ulnar artery (2.6%) using the 6 French R2P Destination Slender sheath in 85, 105, and 119 cm lengths. Atherectomy was used in 34.7%. Mean contrast volume was 105.5 ml and the average fluoroscopy time was 18.5 minutes. Conversion to femoral access occurred in 3 cases (1.9%) because of arterial spasm and noncrossable lesions. Concomitant pedal access occurred in 2 cases (1.3%). Periprocedural complication rate was 3.84%, of which access-site hematoma was most common (3.2%); none required blood transfusion, surgical intervention, or additional hospital stay. There was 1 case (0.64%) of in-hospital stroke. The mortality rate at 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year was 1.4%, 2.8%, and 4.2%, respectively. In conclusion, RA access is feasible for diverse PVI, and future studies are needed to assess safety and benefit compared with femoral artery access.

Major Adverse Renal and Cardiac Events After Coronary Angiography and Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients at high risk for having postprocedural complications may receive iodixanol, an iso-osmolar contrast, during coronary angiography to minimize the risk of renal toxicity. For those who also require cardiac surgery, the wait time between angiography and surgery may be a modifiable factor capable of mitigating poor surgical outcomes; however, there have been inconsistent reports regarding the optimal wait time. We sought to determine the effects of wait time between angiography and cardiac surgery, as well as contrast-induced acute kidney injury on the development of major adverse renal and cardiac events (MARCE). METHODS: We merged datasets to identify adults who underwent coronary angiography with iodixanol and subsequent cardiac surgery. RESULTS: Of 965 patients, 126 (13.1%) had contrast-induced acute kidney injury; 133 (13.8%) had MARCE within 30 days and 253 (26.2%) within 1 year of surgery. After adjusting for contrast-induced acute kidney injury, age, and Thakar acute renal failure score, the effect of wait time lost significance for the full cohort, but remained for the subgroup of 654 who had coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery within 1 day of coronary angiography had an approximate twofold increase in risk of MARCE (30-day hazard ratio 2.13, 95% confidence interval: 1.16 to 3.88, p = 0.014; 1-year hazard ratio 2.07, 95% confidence interval: 1.32 to 3.23, p = 0.002) compared with patients who waited 5 or more days. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had contrast-induced acute kidney injury and had cardiac surgery within 1 day of angiography had an increased risk of MARCE.

The State of the Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffold: Consensus From an Expert Panel.

Significant progress has been made in the percutaneous coronary intervention technique from the days of balloon angioplasty to modern-day metallic drug-eluting stents (DES). Although metallic stents solve a temporary problem of acute recoil following balloon angioplasty, they leave behind a permanent problem implicated in very late events (in addition to neoatherosclerosis). BRS were developed as a potential solution to this permanent problem, but the promise of these devices has been tempered by clinical trials showing increased risk of safety outcomes, both early and late. This is not too dissimilar to the challenges seen with first-generation DES in which refinement of deployment technique, prolongation of dual antiplatelet therapy, and technical iteration mitigated excess risk of very late stent thrombosis, making DES the treatment of choice for coronary artery disease. This white paper discusses the factors potentially implicated in the excess risks, including the scaffold consideration and deployment technique, and outlines patient and lesion selection, implantation technique, and dual antiplatelet therapy considerations to potentially mitigate this excess risk with the first-generation thick strut Absorb scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois). It remains to be seen whether these considerations together with technical iterations will ultimately close the gap between scaffolds and metal stents for short-term events while at the same time preserving options for future revascularization once the scaffold bioresorbs.