Ultrasound-guided versus palpation-guided radial artery catheterization in adult population: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Pacha, Homam Moussa; Alahdab, Fares; Al‐Khadra, Yasser; Idris, Amr; Rabbat, Firas; Darmoch, Fahed; Soud, Mohamad; Zaitoun, Anwar; Kaki, Amir; Rao, Sunil V.; Kwok, Chun Shing; Mamas, Mamas A.; Alraies, M. Chadi

doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2018.06.007

Cited by 84 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, there were no significant differences in the puncture time and complication rate between the conventional and ultrasound-guided dTRA. Such results were in line with the findings of a previous study that compared ultrasound-guided and conventional TRA [ 15 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Therefore, for radial artery cannulation, there is category A, level 1 support for the use of ultrasound to improve first-pass success [ 14 ]. Moreover, it has been reported that ultrasound-guided TRA could be associated with a lower failure rate than conventional TRA (12% vs. 20%, P =0.012) [ 15 ]. This observation is in line with the findings of this study that showed ultrasound-guided dTRA was associated with a lower failure rate than conventional dTRA (3% vs. 13%, P =0.038).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention

Mori

Hirano

Yamawaki

et al. 2020

Journal of Interventional Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention

Mori

Hirano

Yamawaki

et al. 2020

Journal of Interventional Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was no difference in pain scores, spasm, or bleeding, indicating that ultrasound guidance improves procedural efficiency and success. The most recent meta‐analysis of 12 trials of ultrasound‐guided radial access in 2,432 adults in various clinical settings similarly showed an improved first‐attempt success rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.16–1.57]) and decreased failure rate (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32–0.87) …”

Section: Ultrasound Guidance For Arterial Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

SCAI expert consensus statement update on best practices for transradial angiography and intervention

Shroff

Gulati

Drachman

et al. 2019

Cathet Cardio Intervent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transradial angiography and intervention continues to become increasingly common as an access site for coronary procedures. Since the first "Best Practices" paper in 2013, ongoing trials have shed further light onto the safest and most efficient methods to perform these procedures. Specifically, this document comments on the use of ultrasound to facilitate radial access, the role of ulnar artery access, the utility of non-invasive testing of collateral flow, strategies to prevent radial artery occlusion, radial access for primary PCI and topics that require further study.

show abstract

“…The reduction of bleeding event could mainly be attributed to smaller size sheath used in TR‐PCI and the adjunctive use of ultrasound‐guided access may further decrease bleeding complications. Interestingly, ultrasound‐guided access showed decreased risk of bleeding in TF while this was not evident in TR approach . Anticoagulation regimen during PCI is one of the main determinants of bleeding risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention of left main disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies

Ando

Aoi

Ashraf

et al. 2018

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of transradial (TR) versus transfemoral (TF) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in left main (LM) lesion. Background TR‐PCI is the preferred approach compared with TF approach because of less bleeding risk. LM‐PCI is often challenging because of the anatomical complexity and uniqueness of supplying a large myocardium territory. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of TR‐PCI compared with TF‐PCI of the LM lesions. Methods A comprehensive literature search of PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane database was conducted to identify studies that reported the comparable outcomes between both approaches. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Mantel–Haenszel method. Results A total of eight studies were included in the quantitative meta‐analysis. TR‐PCI resulted in lower bleeding risk (OR 0.31, 95%CI 0.18–0.52, P < 0.01, I2 = 0%) while maintaining similar procedural success rate, target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and all‐cause mortality during the study follow‐up period. Conclusions TR‐PCI may achieve similar efficacy with decreased bleeding risk compared to TF‐PCI in LM lesions. When operator experience and anatomical complexity are favorable, TR approach is an attractive alternative access over TF approach in LM‐PCI.

show abstract

Ultrasound-guided versus palpation-guided radial artery catheterization in adult population: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Cited by 84 publications

References 40 publications

A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention

A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention

SCAI expert consensus statement update on best practices for transradial angiography and intervention

Transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention of left main disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About