07 Jun Coronary Catheterization Through Wrist Reduces Access Complications and Hospital Stay
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Dr. Jeffrey Schussler
Jeffrey M. Schussler, MD, FACC, FSCAI, FSCCT, FACP
Baylor Scott & White Health Care System
Cardiology: Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Tx
Medical Director: CVICU Hamilton Heart and Vascular Hospital
Professor of Medicine: Texas A&M School of Medicine
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Schussler: For the past few years, there has been an increased interest in performing coronary catheterization through the wrist. This is a technique that has been done (with great success and low complication rate) in other countries for years, with adoption rates >90% in some places. The US has been slower to adopt performing catheterization from the wrist, but the rate of using this approach has grown tremendously in the last 5 years. While less than 5% of all interventions were done using radial access previously, it now appraches 30% nationally. This increased rate of adoption been spurred on by studies which have shown lower incidences of complications, as well as some mortality benefit, and in particular in those patients who are highest risk for complications.
MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings?
Dr. Schussler: Our study compared patients who underwent coronary angiography as well as coronary intervention using radial access, and compared these to matched controls of patients who had their catheterization through groin access. The main findings, similar to those in other studies, were a reduction in vascular access complications, with associated reductions in length-of-stay.
MedicalResearch.com: What should readers take away from your report?
Dr. Schussler: The general feeling among interventional cardiologists is that the transradial approach is going to continue to gain in popularity, and in the future the majority of the procedures which will be performed will be utilizing this type of access. Studies continue to support its use as being safer, associated with fewer bleeding complications, and associated with less mortality (albeit in the highest risk patients). Patient preference, which is much more subjective, tends to support its use as well.
MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have for future research as a result of this study?
Dr. Schussler: We are continuing to look at our cohort of patients and are hoping to show an association between the use of the transradial approach and a reduction in harder end points (e.g. mortality).
MedicalResearch.com: Is there anything else you would like to add?
Dr. Schussler: I would like to thank the research team at Baylor University Medical Center / Jack and Jane Heart and Vascular Hospital for their support with this project, and in particular the research group, led by Anupama Vasudevan, PhD, and Peter McCullough, MD, for their help with this project.
MedicalResearch.com: Thank you for your contribution to the MedicalResearch.com community.
Citation:
Comparative Efficacy of Trans-radial versus Trans-femoral Approach for Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Schussler, Jeffrey M. et al.
American Journal of Cardiology , Volume 0 , Issue 0 ,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.05.038
Note: Content is Not intended as medical advice. Please consult your health care provider regarding your specific medical condition and questions.
More Medical Research Interviews on MedicalResearch.com.
[wysija_form id=”5″]
Last Updated on June 7, 2016 by Marie Benz MD FAAD