open access
Radial artery ultrasound predicts the success of transradial coronary angiography
open access
Abstract
Background: The transradial approach has become the preferred vascular access during conventional coronary angiography (CCA). Hereby, we evaluated the impact of pre-procedural radial artery diameter (RAD), the cross-sectional area (CSA), and the perimeter on vascular complications (VACs).
Methods: We conducted a single-center prospective analysis of 513 patients who underwent CCA. Radial artery ultrasonography was performed before and after CCA to measure the RAD, CSA, and perimeter.
Results: The average RAD, CSA, and perimeter were 2.60 ± 0.48 mm, 6.2 ± 3.0 mm2, and 8.9 ± 1.7 mm, respectively. Vascular complications were reported in 56 (11%) patients. The RAD, CSA, and perimeter were significantly smaller in patients in whom procedure-related VACs were observed than in those with no complications: 2.3 ± 0.5 vs. 2.70 ± 0.54 mm (p = 0.0001), 4.9 ± 2.1 vs. 6.4 ± 3 mm2 (p = 0.001), and 7.6 ± 2.1 vs. 9.2 ± 1.6 mm (p = 0.0001), respectively. Univariate logistic regression showed that RAD, CSA and perimeter can independently predict VACs (OR 0.833, 95% CI 0.777–0.894, p < 0.0001; OR 0.647, 95% CI 0.541–0.773, p < 0.0001; OR 0.545, 95% CI 0.446–0.665, p < 0.0001, respectively).
Conclusions: Ultrasonographic study of the radial artery before CCA can provide valuable information regarding vascular access.
Abstract
Background: The transradial approach has become the preferred vascular access during conventional coronary angiography (CCA). Hereby, we evaluated the impact of pre-procedural radial artery diameter (RAD), the cross-sectional area (CSA), and the perimeter on vascular complications (VACs).
Methods: We conducted a single-center prospective analysis of 513 patients who underwent CCA. Radial artery ultrasonography was performed before and after CCA to measure the RAD, CSA, and perimeter.
Results: The average RAD, CSA, and perimeter were 2.60 ± 0.48 mm, 6.2 ± 3.0 mm2, and 8.9 ± 1.7 mm, respectively. Vascular complications were reported in 56 (11%) patients. The RAD, CSA, and perimeter were significantly smaller in patients in whom procedure-related VACs were observed than in those with no complications: 2.3 ± 0.5 vs. 2.70 ± 0.54 mm (p = 0.0001), 4.9 ± 2.1 vs. 6.4 ± 3 mm2 (p = 0.001), and 7.6 ± 2.1 vs. 9.2 ± 1.6 mm (p = 0.0001), respectively. Univariate logistic regression showed that RAD, CSA and perimeter can independently predict VACs (OR 0.833, 95% CI 0.777–0.894, p < 0.0001; OR 0.647, 95% CI 0.541–0.773, p < 0.0001; OR 0.545, 95% CI 0.446–0.665, p < 0.0001, respectively).
Conclusions: Ultrasonographic study of the radial artery before CCA can provide valuable information regarding vascular access.
Keywords
transradial approach, vascular access complications, radial artery diameter, radial artery cross-sectional area, radial artery perimeter
About this articleTitle
Radial artery ultrasound predicts the success of transradial coronary angiography
Journal
Issue
Pages
9-14
Published online
2016-09-23
Page views
1918
Article views/downloads
1465
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Cardiol J 2017;24(1):9-14.
Keywords
transradial approach
vascular access complications
radial artery diameter
radial artery cross-sectional area
radial artery perimeter
Authors
Rami M. Abazid
Osama A. Smettei
Mohamed Z. Mohamed
M. Obadah Kattea
Annie Suresh
Yasir Beshir
Haitham Sakr
