Very distal transradial approach (VITRO) for coronary interventions

Wretowski, Dominik; Krakowian, Marcin; Łabyk, Andrzej; Pruszczyk, Piotr; Roik, Marek

doi:10.5114/aic.2019.83771

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All coronary arteries were treated in both group without cardiac events. The safety and feasibility of DRA for stent implantation but also for Fractional Flow Reserve and coronary rotablator had been reported in previous studies [ 15 ]. Some operators have gone further and they proved the efficacy of DRA in extra-cardiac interventions such as dural arteriovenous fistula embolization, carotid artery stentings, stroke thrombectomy … [ 16 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Distal radial approach versus conventional radial approach: a comparative study of feasibility and safety

Hammami

Zouari

Abdessalem

et al. 2020

Libyan Journal of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The distal radial approach (DRA) is suggested to have benefits over the conventional radial approach (CRA) in terms of local complications and comfort of both patient and operator. Therefore, we aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of DRA and CRA in a real life population. We conducted a prospective, observational multicentric trial, including all patients undergoing coronary procedures in September 2019. Patients with impalpable proximal or distal radial pulse were excluded. Thus, the choice of the approach is left to the operator discretion. The primary endpoints were cannulation failure and procedure failure. The secondary endpoints were time of puncture, local complications and radial occlusion assessed by Doppler performed one day after the procedure. We enrolled 177 patients divided into two groups: CRA (n = 95) and DRA (n = 82). Percutaneous intervention was achieved in 37% in CRA group and 34% in DRA group (p = 0.7). Cannulation time was not significantly different between the two sets (p = 0.16). Cannulation failure was significantly higher in DRA group (4.8% vs 2%, p < 0.0008). Successful catheterization was achieved in 98% for the CRA group and in 88% for the DRA group (p = 0.008). Radial artery occlusion, detected by ultrasonography, was found in 3 patients in the CRA group (3.1%) and nobody in the DRA group (p = 0.25). The median diameter of the radial artery diameter was higher in the DRA than the CRA group (2.2 mm vs 2.1 mm; p = 0.007). The distal radial approach is feasible and safe for coronary angiography and interventions, but needs a learning curve.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Distal radial approach versus conventional radial approach: a comparative study of feasibility and safety

Hammami

Zouari

Abdessalem

et al. 2020

Libyan Journal of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are reports of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed through a variation of the TRA, accessing a more distal radial segment at the anatomical snuffbox; this is variably known as the dTRA, snuffbox approach, or very dTRA. [ 9 , 26 , 56 , 65 ] The radial artery is punctured between the tendon of the extensor pollicis longus and tendons of the extensor pollicis brevis and abductor pollicis longus. The dTRA approach has some benefits, relative to the conventional radial approach.…”

Section: Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Transradial approach and its variations for neurointerventional procedures: Literature review

Zalocar

Doroszuk

Goland

2020

Surgical Neurology International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The transfemoral approach (TFA) has been the standard in neuroradiology over the years. However, the transradial approach (TRA) and its variants offer several benefits over the TFA. Methods: Review of the literature about TRA and its variations. We present our results for different neurointerventional procedures at our institution between January 2018 and December 2019. Results: We wrote an educational review describing anatomical and technical aspects, advantages, and complications of this approach. In the past year we increased the percentage of neurointerventional procedures performed through radial or ulnar arteries. Conclusion: There are clearly proven benefits of employing a wrist approach in patients for neurointerventional procedures and its utilization should especially be considered on a daily basis.

show abstract

“…Out of the 60 patients, 27 (90%) were no Failure in distal radial Group whereas at radial group 30 (100%) members without failure of cannulation. [23] Reported that access was suitable in 195 patients with a success rate of 89.4%. In 9 patients arterial puncture failed, while in 14 others despite successful arterial puncture the wire could not be advanced towards the forearm part of the radial artery.…”

Section: Snuff Boxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transradial Approach versus Anatomical Snuff Box Distal Radial Access for Coronary Procedures

Montaser¹,

Emara²,

Eletriby³

et al. 2020

WJCD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Radial artery catheterization is a fundamental approach that is used as a procedural access in the different catheterization laboratories so our study is a comparison between distal radial artery approach and convential traditional transradial approach to explore the fesibility and safety of coronary angiography and percutanous coronary. Aim of the Work: The purpose of our study is a comparison between the conventional transradial approach versus distal transradial approach for diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective study that included 60 patients who presented to the Cardiology departments in Ahmed Maher Teaching Hospital from December 2018 until October 2019 to perform planned Transradial Coronary Angiography and/or coronary intervention. The study is divided into two groups, group (A) included 30 patients who undergone the procedure through the distal radial approach (The Anatomical Snuffbox) and group (B) included 30 patients who undergone the procedure through the traditional Transradial approach. Results: Thrombosis and hospital stay are higher significant in radial group than distal radial group and patient satisfaction is higher significant in distal radial group than traditional Transradial while there is no significant difference between both groups as regard Success and failure rate of cannulation, bleeding, infection and duration of the procedure. Conclusion: coronary procedures by distal radial approach have minor access complication versus the conventional Transradial approach.

show abstract

Very distal transradial approach (VITRO) for coronary interventions

Cited by 18 publications

References 8 publications

Distal radial approach versus conventional radial approach: a comparative study of feasibility and safety

Distal radial approach versus conventional radial approach: a comparative study of feasibility and safety

Transradial approach and its variations for neurointerventional procedures: Literature review

Transradial Approach versus Anatomical Snuff Box Distal Radial Access for Coronary Procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About