Radial artery anomaly and its influence on transradial coronary procedural outcome

Background: The transradial approach for percutaneous coronary procedures has the advantage of reduced access site complications but is associated with specific technical challenges in comparison with the transfemoral approach. Transradial procedure failures can sometimes be due to variation in radi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Heart (British Cardiac Society) 2009-03, Vol.95 (5), p.410-415
Hauptverfasser: Lo, T S, Nolan, J, Fountzopoulos, E, Behan, M, Butler, R, Hetherington, S L, Vijayalakshmi, K, Rajagopal, R, Fraser, D, Zaman, A, Hildick-Smith, D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: The transradial approach for percutaneous coronary procedures has the advantage of reduced access site complications but is associated with specific technical challenges in comparison with the transfemoral approach. Transradial procedure failures can sometimes be due to variation in radial artery anatomy. However, data describing such variations are limited. Objective: To evaluate the incidence and impact of radial artery anomalies in patients undergoing transradial coronary procedures. Methods: Retrograde radial arteriography was performed in all patients presenting for a first-time radial procedure. Patient characteristics, radial artery anatomy and procedural outcome were assessed. Results: 1540 consecutive patients were studied, 70.6% male, mean (SD) age 63.6 (11.1) years. The overall incidence of radial artery anomaly was 13.8% (n = 212). 108 (7.0%) patients had a high-bifurcating radial origin, 35 (2.3%) had a full radial loop, 30 (2.0%) had extreme radial artery tortuosity and 39 (2.5%) had miscellaneous anomalies such as radial atherosclerosis and accessory branches. Overall transradial procedural success was 96.8%. Procedural failure was more common in patients with anomalous anatomy than in patients with normal anatomy (14.2% vs 0.9%, p
ISSN:1355-6037
1468-201X
DOI:10.1136/hrt.2008.150474