Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2001; 54:196–201.32 32 Ferrante G, Rao SV, Jüni P et al. Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Interventions Across the Entire Spectrum of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Trials. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2016; 9:1419–1434.
33 33 Hadjivassiliou A, Cardarelli‐Leite L, Jalal S et al. Left Distal Transradial Access (ldTRA): A Comparative Assessment of Conventional and Distal Radial Artery Size. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2020.
34 34 Rosencher J, Chaib A, Barbou F et al. How to limit radial artery spasm during percutaneous coronary interventions: The spasmolytic agents to avoid spasm during transradial percutaneous coronary interventions (SPASM3) study. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions: Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions 2014; 84:766–71.
35 35 Rathore S, Stables RH, Pauriah M et al. Impact of length and hydrophilic coating of the introducer sheath on radial artery spasm during transradial coronary intervention: a randomized study. JACC Cardiovascular interventions 2010; 3:475–83.
36 36 Abe S, Meguro T, Endoh N et al. Response of the radial artery to three vasodilatory agents. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2000; 49:253–6.
37 37 Varenne O, Jegou A, Cohen R et al. Prevention of arterial spasm during percutaneous coronary interventions through radial artery: the SPASM study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006; 68:231–5.
38 38 Curtis E, Fernandez R, Lee A. The effect of vasodilatory medications on radial artery spasm in patients undergoing transradial coronary artery procedures: a systematic review. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports 2017; 15:1952–1967.
39 39 Deftereos S, Giannopoulos G, Raisakis K et al. Moderate procedural sedation and opioid analgesia during transradial coronary interventions to prevent spasm: a prospective randomized study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6:267–73.
40 40 Bertrand OF. Acute forearm muscle swelling post transradial catheterization and compartment syndrome: prevention is better than treatment! Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 75:366–8.
41 41 Bertrand OF, Larose E, Rodés‐Cabau J et al. Incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of bleeding after transradial coronary stenting and maximal antiplatelet therapy. American heart journal 2009; 157:164–9.
42 42 Sandoval Y, Bell MR, Gulati R. Transradial Artery Access Complications. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions 2019; 12:e007386.
43 43 Tizon‐Marcos H, Barbeau GR. Incidence of Compartment Syndrome of the Arm in a Large Series of Transradial Approach for Coronary Procedures. Journal of interventional cardiology 2008; 21:380–384.
44 44 Sallam MM, Ali M, Al‐Sekaiti R. Management of radial artery perforation complicating coronary intervention: a stepwise approach. Journal of Interventional Cardiology 2011; 24:401–6.
45 45 Calviño‐Santos RA, Vázquez‐Rodríguez JM, Salgado‐Fernández J et al. Management of iatrogenic radial artery perforation. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions: Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions 2004; 61:74–8.
46 46 van Leeuwen MAH, Hollander MR, van der Heijden DJ et al. The ACRA Anatomy Study (Assessment of Disability After Coronary Procedures Using Radial Access): A Comprehensive Anatomic and Functional Assessment of the Vasculature of the Hand and Relation to Outcome After Transradial Catheterization. Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions 2017; 10.
47 47 Pancholy SB, Bernat I, Bertrand OF, Patel TM. Prevention of Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Catheterization: The PROPHET‐II Randomized Trial. JACC Cardiovascular interventions 2016; 9:1992–1999.
48 48 Sanmartin M, Gomez M, Rumoroso JR et al. Interruption of blood flow during compression and radial artery occlusion after transradial catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 70:185–9.
49 49 Ben‐Dor I, Rogers T, Satler LF, Waksman R. Reduction of catheter kinks and knots via radial approach. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions: Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions 2018; 92:1141–1146.
50 50 Cubero JM, Lombardo J, Pedrosa C et al. Radial compression guided by mean artery pressure versus standard compression with a pneumatic device (RACOMAP). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 73:467–72.
51 51 Ferdinand K, Fuminobo Y, Takashi M et al. Focus on maximal miniaturisation of transradial coronary access materials and techniques by the Slender Club Japan and Europe: an overview and classification. EuroIntervention: Journal of EuroPCR in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology 2015; 10:1178–1186.
52 52 Tonomura D, Shimada Y, Yano K et al. Feasibility and safety of a virtual 3–Fr sheathless‐guiding system for percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions: Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions 2014; 84:426–435.
53 53 Cortese B, Rigattieri S, Aranzulla TC et al. Transradial versus transfemoral ancillary approach in complex structural, coronary, and peripheral interventions. Results from the multicenter ancillary registry: A study of the Italian Radial Club. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 91:97–102.
54 54 Krause DJ, Elias G, Moazez C, Zeitjian V, Saririan M. Bleeding And Vascular Complications During Cardiac Catheterization Using Conventional Radial Access Versus “Safe” Femoral Access. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2019; 73:1389.
55 55 Roussanov O, Wilson SJ, Henley K et al. Cost‐effectiveness of the radial versus femoral artery approach to diagnostic cardiac catheterization. The Journal of Invasive Cardiology 2007; 19:349–53.
CHAPTER 4
Optimal Angiographic Views for Coronary Angioplasty
Flavia Caniato, Francesca Ristalli, Alessio Mattesini, Carlo Di Mario, and Gioel Gabrio Secco
Angiography has been the keystone tool to assess coronary anatomy, leading to the development of largely applied revascularization techniques such as coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). When CABG was the only revascularization strategy, the main scope of angiography was to detect the presence of significant stenosis and to provide information on vessel distality and contrast run‐off. There was no need to be parsimonious with contrast because no further angiographic procedures were being planned. However, with the development of PCI, angiography has become far more important. In addition to clearly demonstrating the entire length of all epicardial arteries, the focus is to identify the anatomy of the lesion including its extension and the relationship with side branch vessels in order to allow correct planning of the revascularization strategy. The number of views and contrast use is restricted to the minimum required in anticipation of further contrast requirement during intervention. Therefore, angioplasty focused projections should be favored in view of standard acquisitions, carefully selecting the more informative views in order to avoid foreshortening or overlapping of the diseased vessels [1]. The main limitation of angiography is that it can only provide a limited analysis of lumen profile without providing in‐depth information about vessel wall characteristics or the composition of coronary lesions. New intracoronary imaging techniques, namely IVUS and OCT, have been developed to overcome these limitations and will be discussed in subsequent chapters.
Catheter
