Dangas G, Mehran R, Kokolis S, et al. Vascular complications after percutaneous coronary interventions following hemostasis with manual compression versus arteriotomy closure devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38(3):638–41. Epub 2001/08/31. doi: 10.1016/s0735‐1097(01)01449‐8. PubMed PMID: 11527609.43 43 Warren BS, Warren SG, Miller SD. Predictors of complications and learning curve using the Angio‐Seal closure device following interventional and diagnostic catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999; 48(2):162–6. Epub 1999/10/03. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1522‐726x(199910)48:2<162::aid‐ccd8>3.0.co;2‐2. PubMed PMID: 10506771.
44 44 Farooq V, Goedhart D, Ludman P, et al. Relationship Between Femoral Vascular Closure Devices and Short‐Term Mortality From 271 845 Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Procedures Performed in the United Kingdom Between 2006 and 2011: A Propensity Score‐Corrected Analysis From the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(6). Epub 2016/05/27. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.003560. PubMed PMID: 27225421.
45 45 Robertson L, Andras A, Colgan F, Jackson R. Vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 3:CD009541. Epub 2016/03/08. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009541.pub2. PubMed PMID: 26948236.
46 46 Duffin DC, Muhlestein JB, Allisson SB, et al. Femoral arterial puncture management after percutaneous coronary procedures: a comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between manual compression and two different vascular closure devices. J Invasive Cardiol. 2001; 13(5):354–62. Epub 2001/06/01. PubMed PMID: 11385148.
47 47 Rickli H, Unterweger M, Sutsch G, et al. Comparison of costs and safety of a suture‐mediated closure device with conventional manual compression after coronary artery interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002; 57(3):297–302. Epub 2002/11/01. doi: 10.1002/ccd.10294. PubMed PMID: 12410501.
48 48 Schulz‐Schupke S, Helde S, Gewalt S, et al. Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture: the ISAR‐CLOSURE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014; 312(19):1981–7. Epub 2014/11/17. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.15305. PubMed PMID: 25399273.
49 49 Toggweiler S, Gurvitch R, Leipsic J, et al. Percutaneous aortic valve replacement: vascular outcomes with a fully percutaneous procedure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59(2):113–8. Epub 2012/01/10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.069. PubMed PMID: 22222073.
50 50 Vierhout BP, Pol RA, El Moumni M, Zeebregts CJ. Editor's Choice – Arteriotomy Closure Devices in EVAR, TEVAR, and TAVR: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017; 54(1):104–15. Epub 2017/04/26. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.03.015. PubMed PMID: 28438400.
51 51 Biancari F, Romppanen H, Savontaus M, et al. MANTA versus ProGlide vascular closure devices in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2018; 263:29–31. Epub 2018/04/24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.04.065. PubMed PMID: 29681408.
52 52 Feldman T. Percutaneous suture closure for management of large French size arterial and venous puncture. J Interven Cardiol 2000; 13:237–41.
53 53 Solomon LW, Fusman B, Jolly N, Kim A, Feldman T. Percutaneous suture closure for management of large French size arterial puncture in aortic valvuloplasty. J Invasive Cardiol. 2001; 13(8):592–6. Epub 2001/08/02. PubMed PMID: 11481509.
54 54 Perlowski AS, Salinger MH, Justin, P, et al. Femoral access for TAVR: techniques for prevention and endovascular management of complications. In: Dieter RS DRJ, Dieter RA III editor. Endovascular Interventions: A Case‐Based Approach. NY: Springer; 2014. p. 859–74.
55 55 Genereux P, Kodali S, Leon MB, et al. Clinical outcomes using a new crossover balloon occlusion technique for percutaneous closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4(8):861–7. Epub 2011/08/20. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2011.05.019. PubMed PMID: 21851899.
56 56 Power D, Schafer U, Guedeney P, et al. Impact of percutaneous closure device type on vascular and bleeding complications after TAVR: A post hoc analysis from the BRAVO‐3 randomized trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 93(7):1374–81. Epub 2019/05/23. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28295. PubMed PMID: 31116908.
57 57 Kiramijyan S, Magalhaes MA, Ben‐Dor I, et al. The adjunctive use of Angio‐Seal in femoral vascular closure following percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement. EuroIntervention. 2016; 12(1):88–93. Epub 2016/05/14. doi: 10.4244/EIJV12I1A16. PubMed PMID: 27173868.
58 58 Saugel B, Scheeren TWL, Teboul JL. Ultrasound‐guided central venous catheter placement: a structured review and recommendations for clinical practice. Crit Care. 2017; 21(1):225. Epub 2017/08/29. doi: 10.1186/s13054‐017‐1814‐y. PubMed PMID: 28844205; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5572160.
59 59 Cilingiroglu M, Salinger M, Zhao D, Feldman T. Technique of temporary subcutaneous “Figure‐of‐Eight” sutures to achieve hemostasis after removal of large‐caliber femoral venous sheaths. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 78(1):155–60. Epub 2011/06/18. doi: 10.1002/ccd.22946. PubMed PMID: 21681904.
60 60 Geis NA, Pleger ST, Chorianopoulos E, et al. Feasibility and clinical benefit of a suture‐mediated closure device for femoral vein access after percutaneous edge‐to‐edge mitral valve repair. EuroIntervention. 2015; 10(11):1346–53. Epub 2014/04/04. doi: 10.4244/EIJV10I11A231. PubMed PMID: 24694560.
61 61 Steppich B, Stegmuller F, Rumpf PM, et al. Vascular complications after percutaneous mitral valve repair and venous access closure using suture or closure device. J Interv Cardiol. 2018; 31(2):223–9. Epub 2017/11/18. doi: 10.1111/joic.12459. PubMed PMID: 29148095.
CHAPTER 3
Radial Artery, Alternative Arm Access, and Related Techniques
Thomas J. Ford, Paul Bamford, and Christian Said
Introduction
Transradial access (TRA) has evolved over the last few decades to become the standard approach for coronary angiography and interventions worldwide. Refinements in technique and technology have enabled complex coronary interventions to be completed from the wrist with improved patient outcomes, reduced complications and higher patient satisfaction as compared with transfemoral procedures [1]. Recent interest and research in transradial interventions have focused on the distal radial approach which has potential for improved ergonomics with enhanced patency of the proximal radial artery.
Rationale and evidence for transradial access
Due to its superficial course distally and relative freedom from other anatomical structures, the radial artery is easy to puncture and safe to compress after sheath removal [2]. Bleeding complications are easily recognized by the patient or clinician and readily controlled by local compression. As a result, TRA has proven efficacy in reducing non‐ischemic complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), namely those involving vascular access site and bleeding. Multiple randomized control trials (RCTs) and meta‐analyses have shaped recent international guidelines that are now unanimous in support of radial access as the default approach for patients undergoing coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention (unless there are overriding procedural considerations) [3–5].
A meta‐analysis of randomized trials incorporating 22 000 patients demonstrated that compared to transfemoral access (TFA), TRA was associated with a significantly lower risk of all‐cause mortality (odds
