Transradial Wrist Angioplasty
Safe and Effective in Treatment of Heart Attack
British Study of STEMI Patients
Shows Safety, Comparable Outcomes
Between Radial and Femoral Access; Radial Access Resulted in Significantly
Lower Complications
|
 |
July 28, 2009 -- For
patients having the most serious form of heart attack, a new study
from the United Kingdom concludes that primary angioplasty performed
from the wrist "is safe, with comparable outcomes to a
femoral approach and a lower risk of vascular complications."

James Cook
University
Hospital, Middlesbrough,
United Kingdom |
|
The study, published
"online first" in Heart, the official journal
of the British Cardiovascular Society, looked at 1,051 consecutive
patients admitted to a single regional cardiac center with ST-elevation
myocardial infarction (STEMI) between
November 2004 and November 2008. Patients presenting to James
Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough were treated with percutaneous
coronary intervention (PCI, a.k.a. angioplasty) using either
radial (571 patients) or femoral (480) artery access. Procedural
success was similar between the radial and femoral groups, but
major
vascular complications were more frequent at the site of femoral access (0% radial
versus 1.9% femoral, p=0.001). |
Patients with cardiogenic shock were excluded from
this study, since most would require placement of an intra-aortic
balloon pump, which is done through the femoral artery.
A number of
recent studies and reports have documented the advantages
of the
wrist approach,
yet
it is utilized
in less
than 5% of cases
in the U.S. A common concern, primarily among cardiologists who
practice the femoral approach from the groin, is that radial access
may take
longer, or may not be possible in some patients, requiring cross-over
to the femoral approach -- something that might impact patient
safety when time is of the essence, as in treating acute myocardial
infarction.
In this study, even though the cross-over rate from radial to femoral
was 7.7%, as opposed to 0.6% for femoral to radial, there was no
difference in in-hospital mortality or MACE between the two cohorts.
However, those patients where wrist
access was used had no major vascular complications (almost 2% for
femoral) -- and many
of these were bleeding complications requiring
transfusion, a situation associated with increased mortality at 30
days and one year (see the
M.O.R.T.A.L. study).
Further advantages for the radial side were an
average of one less day of hospital stay for the radial patients
and therefore lower cost -- a factor which has significant implications
in the current healthcare environment in the United States.
One interesting sidelight: the use of the radial
technique increased over the four year observational period due to
operators who primarily started with the femoral tecnique changing
over more and more to the radial technique. This migration is reported
by a number of interventional cardiologists who, once past the learning
curve, find that they do almost all of their cases via the wrist.
Reported by Burt Cohen, July 28, 2009
|