Transradial interventions (TRI) are becoming increasingly popular because of accumulating recent evidence suggesting improved survival and reduced morbidity. Complications, though rare, do occur, especially for operators on their learning curve. The complications are best prevented by utilization of proper technique. Forearm hematoma are preventable and easy to treat, but a delay in detecting and managing them can lead to disastrous consequences compartment syndrome being the most dreaded one. This review deals with tips and tricks to prevent as also treat the common and rare complications.

This single center prospective registry shows that PPUAA is feasible, requires minimum time, and provides anatomical information that may improve procedure success while reducing patient discomfort, arterial spasm, and fluoroscopy time. These findings should be confirmed in a randomized trial.

Little is known about the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on management strategies and in-hospital clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and its subtypes, and whether these trends have changed over time. All AMI hospitalizations from the National Inpatient Sample (2004Sample ( to 2014 were analyzed and stratified by zip code-based median household income (MHI) into four quartiles (poorest to wealthiest): 0 th -25 th , 26 th -50 th , 51 st -75 th and 76 th -100 th . Logistic regression was performed to examine the association between MHI and AMI management strategy and in-hospital clinical outcomes. A total of 6,603,709 AMI hospitalizations were analyzed. Patients in the lowest MHI group had more comorbidities, a worse cardiovascular risk factor profile and were more likely to be female. Differences in receipt of invasive management were observed between the lowest and highest MHI quartiles, with the lowest MHI group less likely to undergo coronary angiography (63.4% vs. 64.3%, P <0.001) and percutaneous coronary intervention (40.4% vs. 44.3%, P <0.001) compared to the highest MHI group, especially in the STEMI subgroup. In multivariable analysis, the highest MHI group experienced better outcomes including lower risk (adjusted odds ratio; 95% confidence intervals) of mortality (0.88; 0.88-0.89), MACCE (0.91; 0.91-0.92) and acute ischemic stroke (0.90; 0.88-0.91), but higher all-cause bleeding (1.08; 1.06-1.09) in comparison to the lowest MHI group. The provision of invasive management for AMI in patients with lower SES is less than patients with higher SES and is associated with worse inhospital clinical outcomes. This work highlights the importance of ensuring equity of access and care across all strata socioeconomic status.

Aims :To evaluate safety and efficacy of distal right radial access (DRRA) compared to right radial access (RRA), for coronary procedures, in patients with smaller diameter radial arteries (SDRA) (radial artery diameter (RAD) < 2.1 mm). Methods and results This is a retrospective analysis of safety and efficacy of DRRA Vs. RRA in patients undergoing coronary procedures at our cardiac catheterization laboratories over a 10- month period between September 2017 and June, 2018 (first 5 calendar months with RRA-first; next 5 calendar months with DRRA-first). All patients underwent pre-procedure ultrasound of arm arteries. All patients had RAD<2.1 mm (mean RAD 1.63 ± 0.27 mm; RAD≤1.6 mm in 73.5%). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Primary end-point of puncture success was significantly lower in DRRA vs RRA group [79.5% vs 98.5%, p < 0.0001]. Puncture success was also lower in the subgroup of patients with RAD <1.6 mm Vs. ≥ 1.6 mm in the DRRA group ( p < 0.0001). The secondary end-point of puncture time was significantly higher (2.1 ± 1.4 min vs. 1.0 ± 0.45 min, p < 0.00001) in the DRRA Vs. RRA group. The occurrence of vascular access site complications (including access site hematomas), radial artery occlusion (RAO) and distal RAO at day 1 and day 30 were similar between RRA and DRRA groups.Non-vascular access-site complication was seen only in the DRRA group. Conclusion DRRA is a safe and effective access for coronary procedures; though technically challenging in patients with SDRA (RAD<2.1 mm; mean RAD 1.63 ± 0.27 mm), with lower puncture success and higher puncture time compared to RRA.