Advertisement

Heart and Vessels

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 419–426 | Cite as

Routine use of fluoroscopic guidance and up-front femoral angiography results in reduced femoral complications in patients undergoing coronary angiographic procedures: an observational study using an Interrupted Time-Series analysis

  • Emily V. Castle
  • Krishnaraj S. Rathod
  • Oliver P. Guttmann
  • Alice M. Jenkins
  • Carmel D. McCarthy
  • Charles J. Knight
  • Constantinos O’Mahony
  • Anthony Mathur
  • Elliot J. Smith
  • Roshan Weerackody
  • Adam D. Timmis
  • Andrew Wragg
  • Daniel A. JonesEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Transradial access is increasingly used for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, however, femoral access remains necessary for numerous procedures, including complex high-risk interventions, structural procedures, and procedures involving mechanical circulatory support. Optimising the safety of this approach is crucial to minimize costly and potentially life-threatening complications. We initiated a quality improvement project recommending routine fluoroscopic guidance (femoral head), and upfront femoral angiography should be performed to assess for location and immediate complications. We assessed the effect of these measures on the rate of vascular complications. Data were collected prospectively on 4534 consecutive patients undergoing femoral coronary angiographic procedures from 2015 to 2017. The primary end-point was any access complication. Outcomes were compared pre and post introduction including the use of an Interrupted Time-Series (ITS) analysis. 1890 patients underwent angiography prior to the introduction of routine fluoroscopy and upfront femoral angiography and 2644 post. All operators adopted these approaches. Baseline characteristics, including large sheath use, anticoagulant use and PCI rates were similar between the 2 groups. Fluoroscopy-enabled punctures were made in the ‘safe zone’ in over 91% of cases and upfront femoral angiography resulted in management changes i.e. procedural abandonment prior to heparin administration in 21 patients (1.1%). ITS analysis demonstrated evidence of a reduction in femoral complication rates after the introduction of the intervention, which was over and above the existing trend before the introduction (40% decrease RR 0.58; 95% CI: 0.25–0.87; P < 0.01). Overall these quality improvement measures were associated with a significantly lower incidence of access site complications (0.9% vs. 2.0%, P < 0.001). Routine fluoroscopy guided vascular access and upfront femoral angiography prior to anticoagulation leads to lower vascular complication rates. Thus, study shows that femoral intervention can be performed safely with very low access-related complication rates when fluoroscopic guidance and upfront angiography is used to obtain femoral arterial access.

Keywords

Femoral access Femoral angiography Percutaneous coronary intervention Fluoroscopy 

Notes

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kinnaird T, Anderson R, Ossei-Gerning N, Gallagher S, Large A, Strange J, Ludman P, de Belder M, Nolan J, Hildick-Smith D, Mamas M (2017) Vascular access site and outcomes among 26,807 chronic total coronary occlusion angioplasty cases from the British Cardiovascular Interventions Society National Database. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 10:635–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ludman PF (2011) British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Registry for audit and quality assessment of percutaneous coronary interventions in the United Kingdom. Heart 97:1293–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azzalini L, Tosin K, Chabot-Blanchet M, Avram R, Ly HQ, Gaudet B, Gallo R, Doucet S, Tanguay JF, Ibrahim R, Grégoire JC, Crépeau J, Bonan R, de Guise P, Nosair M, Dorval JF, Gosselin G, L’Allier PL, Guertin MC, Asgar AW, Jolicœur EM (2015) The benefits conferred by radial access for cardiac catheterization are offset by a paradoxical increase in the rate of vascular access site complications with femoral access: the Campeau Radial Paradox. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8:1854–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rafie IM, Uddin MM, Ossei-Gerning N, Anderson RA, Kinnaird TD (2014) Patients undergoing PCI from the femoral route by default radial operators are at high risk of vascular access-site complications. EuroIntervention 9:1189–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rao SV, Stone GW (2016) Arterial access and arteriotomy site closure devices. Nat Rev Cardiol 13:641–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sandoval Y, Burke MN, Lobo AS, Lips DL, Seto AH, Chavez I, Sorajja P, Abu-Fadel MS, Wang Y, Poulouse A, Gössl M, Mooney M, Traverse J, Tierney D, Brilakis ES (2017) Contemporary arterial access in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 10:2233–2241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chatterjee A, Hillegass WB (2018) Patient preference: an important emerging factor in operator access site selection. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 91:25–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pitta RS, Prasad A, Kumar G, Lennon R, Rihal CS, Holmes DR (2011) Location of femoral artery access and correlation with vascular complications. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 78:294–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D (2002) Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther 27:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kontopantelis E, Doran T, Springate DA, Buchan I, Reeves D (2015) Regression based quasi-experimental approach when randomisation is not an option: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 350:h2750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Portela MC, Pronovost PJ, Woodcock T, Carter P, Dixon-Woods M (2015) How to study improvement interventions: a brief overview of possible study types. Postgrad Med J 91:343–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A (2017) Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol 46(1):348–355Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Damluji AA, Nelson DW, Valgimigli M, Windecker S, Byrne RA, Cohen F, Patel T, Brilakis ES, Banerjee S, Mayol J, Cantor WJ, Alfonso CE, Rao SV, Moscucci M, Cohen MG (2017) Transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and intervention: a collaboration of international cardiovascular societies. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 10:2269–2279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gilchrist IC (2017) Palpate-and-stick, still the femoral access technique of choice: time for change. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 10:2280–2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee MS, Applegate B, Rao SV, Kirtane AJ, Seto A, Stone GW (2014) Minimizing femoral artery access complications during percutaneous coronary intervention: a comprehensive review. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 84:62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sobolev M, Slovut DP, Chang AL, Shiloh AL, Eisen LA (2015) Ultrasound-guided catheterization of the femoral artery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Invasive Cardiol 27:318–323Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chinikar M, Ahmadi A, Heidarzadeh A, Sadeghipour P (2014) Imaging or trusting on surface anatomy? A comparison between fluoroscopic guidance and anatomic landmarks for femoral artery access in diagnostic cardiac catheterization. A randomized control trial. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 29:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seto AH, Abu-Fadel MS, Sparling JM, Zacharias SJ, Daly TS, Harrison AT, Suh WM, Vera JA, Aston CE, Winters RJ, Patel PM, Hennebry TA, Kern MJ (2010) Real-time ultrasound guidance facilitates femoral arterial access and reduces vascular complications: FAUST (Femoral Arterial Access With Ultrasound Trial). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 3:751–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fairley SL, Lucking AJ, McEntegart M, Shaukat A, Smith D, Chase A, Hanratty CG, Spratt JC, Walsh SJ (2016) routine use of fluoroscopic-guided femoral arterial puncture to minimise vascular complication rates in CTO intervention: multi-centre UK Experience. Heart Lung Circ 25:1203–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Castillo-Sang M, Tsang AW, Almaroof B, Cireddu J, Sferra J, Zelenock GB, Engoren M, Kasper G (2010) Femoral artery complications after cardiac catheterization: a study of patient profile. Ann Vasc Surg 24:328–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brueck M, Bandorski D, Kramer W, Wieczorek M, Höltgen R, Tillmanns H (2009) A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2:1047–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luepker RV, Bouchard RJ, Burns R, Warbasse JR (1975) Systemic heparinization during percutaneous coronary angiography: evaluation of effectiveness in decreasing thrombotic and embolic catheter complications. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marquis-Gravel G, Tremblay-Gravel M, Lévesque J, Généreux P, Schampaert E, Palisaitis D, Doucet M, Charron T, Terriault P, Tessier P (2018) Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmark approach for femoral artery access in coronary angiography: a randomized controlled trial and a meta-analysis. J Interv Cardiol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joic.12492 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily V. Castle
    • 1
  • Krishnaraj S. Rathod
    • 1
    • 2
  • Oliver P. Guttmann
    • 1
  • Alice M. Jenkins
    • 1
  • Carmel D. McCarthy
    • 1
  • Charles J. Knight
    • 1
    • 2
  • Constantinos O’Mahony
    • 1
  • Anthony Mathur
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elliot J. Smith
    • 1
    • 2
  • Roshan Weerackody
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adam D. Timmis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrew Wragg
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel A. Jones
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Barts Interventional Group, Interventional Cardiology, Barts Heart CentreSt Bartholomew’s HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Clinical PharmacologyWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations