BackgroundRadial artery access is the primary approach for coronary interventions due to higher safety profile in comparison to femoral access. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the main complication of transradial catheterization that can lead to severe symptoms and a permanent artery occlusion. The incidence of RAO after transradial access ranges from 5 to 38% and data regarding treatment is scarce. Whether anticoagulation and vasoactive medication provides an additional benefit in recovery of radial artery patency (RAP) after catheterization has not been investigated in detail.AimThe objective was to investigate the impact of anticoagulation and vasoactive medication on regained patency after documented RAO following transradial catheterization.Patients and methodsOverall 2635 patients were screened. 2215 (84%) catheterizations were performed by femoral and 420 (16%) by radial access. In 30 patients RAO was observed. In case of RAO patients were classified in three groups: Anticoagulation, anticoagulation added with alprostadil and controls. Follow-up was conducted after 3 months with ultrasound and clinical examination.ResultsEight patients received anticoagulation and 11 patients anticoagulation together with alprostadil. Eleven patients served as controls. Recovery of RAP after catheterization was higher following either treatment (79.5%) compared to controls (0%, p = 0.006). Subgroup analysis yielded a higher RAP recovery in patients treated with anticoagulation (62.5%) as compared to controls (0%, p = 0.002). No effect on regained RAP was found with additional alprostadil therapy (33.3%) compared to anticoagulation therapy (62.5%, p = 0.229).ConclusionRAO should be treated with anticoagulation to regain patency. Addition of vasoactive medication does not lead to further beneficial effects. Further research is needed regarding preventive and therapeutic strategies following RAO.
Our findings suggest that local anesthesia with conscious sedation using propofol and midazolam is a safe and feasible option for S-ICD implantation procedures using an intermuscular technique.
Despite patients with diabetes mellitus are high-risk patients, the outcome of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure is similar to patients without diabetes mellitus.
Introduction
Surgical implantation of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) requires preparation of a deeper and larger pocket. Infection and bleeding complications are reported, particularly in patients requiring antiplatelet therapy (APT) or being on oral anticoagulation (OAC), with rates up to 25%. The pulsed electron avalanche knife (PEAK) PlasmaBlade™ has been reported to reduce bleeding complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a PEAK guided S-ICD implantation with respect to perioperative complications.
Methods and results
We enrolled 36 consecutive patients (75% male; mean age 52.1 ± 14.4 years) undergoing S-ICD implantation. Periprocedural safety endpoints comprised major complications including pocket hematomas, wound infections, bleeding (BARC ≥2) or events requiring interventions. Patients were divided into three groups according to management of their anticoagulation: i.) APT, n = 15 (41.7%); ii.) OAC, n = 10 patients (27.8%); iii.) none (neither OAC nor APT), n = 11 (30.6%). Mean procedure duration was 33.1 ± 13.4 min. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.3 ± 2.1 days. Overall analysis showed no differences between the 3 groups with respect to major complications, major bleeding episodes or other procedural parameters, beside a trend towards more minor hematomas in the OAC group (OAC: 22.2% vs. APT: 11.4% vs. none: 9.1%;
p
= 0.15).
Conclusion
The results of our pilot study suggest that intermuscular S-ICD implantation using PEAK is safe and potentially beneficial in patients receiving OAC or APT with respect to prevention of bleeding complications. These results support the rationale for large prospective controlled trials evaluating a beneficial effect of PEAK use in S-ICD implantation procedures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.