Abstract 374: Trans-radial Access Angiography Learning Curve

Introduction: Radial artery access has been adopted widely around the world as standard best practice for coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Radial artery access offers benefits in regard to reduced major bleeding, reduced hospital stay, fewer vascular complications, similar procedural times, patient preference and a mortality benefit in acute coronary syndrome/STEMI management. Despite transradial access being best practice, there has been a slow uptake of this technique amongst some cardiologists/interventionalists, particularly in the USA. This may partially be attributed to uncertainties regarding the learning curve and concerns regarding delaying treatment in STEMI if radial access fails. Methods: Using the data from the Coronary Angiography Database Of South Australia registry (CADOSA), we sought to determine the radial access failure rates for acute cases during transition from routine femoral access to routine radial access from 2012 to 2016, a period when the greatest transition in practice occurred. Data regarding initial vascular access, success or failure, and subsequent vascular access was prospectively recorded for all cases. Operators with at least a 70% rate of initial radial access were deemed to be established radial operators and acted as controls for operators transitioning from femoral access (at least 70% of cases) to radial access during the study period. Cases were further classified as elective, urgent (eg inpatient ACS) or emergency (eg STEMI). Results: There were 23 operators with sufficient volumes, responsible for 20,073 cath lab visits during the 5 year period studied. The overall radial access rate increased from 57% in 2012 to 78% in 2016. For operators transitioning from a default femoral access (76% of case) to a default radial access (75% of cases), the radial access failure rate for urgent and emergency cases was 3.7%, compared to 3.5% for experienced radial operators over the same period. Conclusion: Despite strong evidence of benefit for radial access angiography and intervention, compared to femoral access, some operators remain reluctant to transition. Utilising the CADOSA database, we observed a safe transition from femoral to radial access without an increased risk of access site failure for acute cases. Transition from femoral to radial access can be made safely by a range of clinicians managing acute cases.

Radial Approach Expertise and Clinical Outcomes of Percutanous Coronary Interventions Performed Using Femoral Approach

We sought to evaluate the impact of experience and proficiency with radial approach (RA) on clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed via femoral approach (FA) in the “real-world” national registry. A total of 539 invasive cardiologists performing PCIs in 151 invasive cardiology centers in Poland between 2014 and 2017 were included. Proficiency threshold was set at >300 PCIs during four consecutive years per individual operator. The majority of operators performed >75% of all PCIs via RA (449 (65.4%)), 143 (20.8%) in 50–75% of cases, 62 (9.0%) in 25–50% and only 33 (4.8%) invasive cardiologists were using RA in <25% of all PCIs. Operators with the highest proficiency in RA were associated with increased risk of periprocedural death, stroke and bleeding complications at access site during angiography via FA. Similarly, higher prevalence of periprocedural mortality during PCI with FA was observed in most experienced radial operators as compared to other groups. The detrimental effect of FA utilization by the most experienced radial operators was observed in both stable angina and acute coronary syndromes. Higher experience and utilization of RA might be linked to worse outcomes of PCIs performed via femoral artery in both stable and acute settings.