Transradial access for interventional procedures has become increasingly favored over the transfemoral approach. However, radial artery spasm (RAS) and radial artery occlusion (RAO) pose challenges to this approach.
Aims
This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hydrophilic coated (HC) introducer sheaths with non-coated (NC) introducer sheaths during transradial procedures. The impact on RAS, RAO, periprocedural pain, and complications is evaluated.
Methods
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs utilizing HC sheaths in their intervention arm and NC sheaths in the control arm for patients undergoing transradial procedures. Outcomes included incidence of RAS, RAO, pain or discomfort during the procedure, procedure duration, pseudoaneurysm, and hematoma. RevMan 5.4 software was used to analyze pooled risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.
Results
Eight RCTs were included in this study. HC sheaths significantly reduced the risk of RAS and periprocedural pain or discomfort compared to NC sheaths (RR = 0.38, 95% CI [0.24, 0.60], I2 = 19% and RR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.37, 0.59], I2 = 1%, respectively). The use of HC sheaths had no significant effect on the risk of RAO, hematoma, or pseudoaneurysm.
Conclusion
The use of HC sheaths can enhance the overall patient and operator experience by reducing the risk of RAS and pain during transradial procedures, with no significant effect on RAO, hematoma, or pseudoaneurysm. This study provides evidence supporting the superiority of HC introducer sheaths over NC sheaths during transradial interventions.
JollySSAmlaniSHamonM, et al.Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J2009; 157: 132–140.
3.
AlkagietSPetroglouDNikasDN, et al.Access-site complications of the transradial approach: rare but still there. CCR2021; 17: 279–293.
4.
FeldmanDNSwaminathanRVKaltenbachLA, et al.Adoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007–2012). Circulation2013; 127: 2295–2306.
5.
SaitoSTanakaSHiroeY, et al.Comparative study on transradial approach vs. transfemoral approach in primary stent implantation for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results of the test for myocardial infarction by prospective unicenter randomization for access sites (TEMPURA) trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2003; 59: 26–33.
6.
KiemeneijFVajifdarBUEccleshallSC, et al.Measurement of radial artery spasm using an automatic pullback device. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2001; 54: 437–441.
CurtisEFernandezRKhooJ, et al.Clinical predictors and management for radial artery spasm: an Australian cross-sectional study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord2023; 23: 33.
9.
RoczniakJTarnawskiADziewierzA, et al.Radial artery spasms—angiographic morphology, risk factors and management. Adv Interv Cardiol2024; 20: 53–61.
10.
HoHHJafaryFHOngPJ. Radial artery spasm during transradial cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention: incidence, predisposing factors, prevention, and management. Cardiovasc Revasc Med2012; 13: 193–195.
11.
ColletCCorralJCavalcanteR, et al.Pressure-mediated versus pharmacologic treatment of radial artery spasm during cardiac catheterisation: a randomised pilot study. EuroIntervention2017; 12: e2212–e2218.
12.
JiaDAZhouYJShiDM, et al.Incidence and predictors of radial artery spasm during transradial coronary angiography and intervention. Chin Med J (Engl)2010; 123: 843–847.
13.
GorguluSNorgazTKaraahmetT, et al.Incidence and predictors of radial artery spasm at the beginning of a transradial coronary procedure. J Interv Cardiol2013; 26: 208–213.
14.
RathoreSStablesRHPauriahM, et al.Impact of length and hydrophilic coating of the introducer sheath on radial artery spasm during transradial coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2010; 3: 475–483.
CaussinCGharbiMDurierC, et al.Reduction in spasm with a long hydrophylic transradial sheath. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2010; 76: 668–672.
18.
SaitoSTanakaSHiroeY, et al.Usefulness of hydrophilic coating on arterial sheath introducer in transradial coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2002; 56: 328–332.
19.
KindelMRüppelR. Hydrophilic-coated sheaths increase the success rate of transradial coronary procedures and reduce patient discomfort but do not reduce the occlusion rate: randomized single-blind comparison of coated vs. non-coated sheaths. Clin Res Cardiol2008; 97: 609–614.
20.
KiemeneijFFraserDSlagboomT, et al.Hydrophilic coating aids radial sheath withdrawal and reduces patient discomfort following transradial coronary intervention: a randomized double-blind comparison of coated and uncoated sheaths. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2003; 59: 161–164.
21.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J2021: n71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
22.
SterneJACSavovićJPageMJ, et al.Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J2019: l4898. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
23.
McGuinnessLAHigginsJPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods2021; 12: 55–61.
24.
DeryJSimardSBarbeauGR. Reduction of discomfort at sheath removal during transradial coronary procedures with the use of a hydrophilic-coated sheath. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2001; 54: 289–294.
25.
SindbergBAagren NielsenCGHestbjerg PoulsenM, et al.Randomized comparison of Terumo® coated SlenderTM versus Terumo® noncoated traditional sheath during radial angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention. J Interv Cardiol2019; 2019: 1–7.
26.
LuWChenTWangH, et al.Comparison of the effect of a 6-French glidesheath slender and a conventional sheath on distal radial artery occlusion: a randomized controlled trial. Can J Cardiol2024; 40: 2292–2300.
27.
SobolewskiPEl FrayM. Cardiac catheterization: consequences for the endothelium and potential for nanomedicine. WIRES Nanomed Nanobiotechnol2015; 7: 458–473.
28.
UhlemannMMöbius-WinklerSMendeM, et al.The Leipzig prospective vascular ultrasound registry in radial artery catheterization. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2012; 5: 36–43.
29.
DahmJBVogelgesangDHummelA, et al.A randomized trial of 5 vs. 6 French transradial percutaneous coronary interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2002; 57: 172–176.
30.
LutherEJabbourPMPetersonEC. Use of long radial sheaths for radial artery spasm in neurointerventions. In: JabbourPPetersonE (eds) Radial access for neurointervention. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2021, pp.89–100.
31.
NasrAY. The radial artery and its variations: anatomical study and clinical implications. Folia Morphol (Warsz)2012; 71: 252–262.
32.
KanamallaUSKochanJP. Neurointerventional guide sheath. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2006; 27: 951.
33.
DmytriwAAHaWBickfordS, et al.Long vascular sheaths for transfemoral neuroendovascular procedures in children. Neurointervention2021; 16: 149–157.
34.
BoekenTAltayebAShotarE, et al.Prohibitive radial artery occlusion rates following transradial access using a 6-French neuron MAX long sheath for intracranial aneurysm treatment. Clin Neuroradiol2022; 32: 1031–1036.
35.
ChenSHSnellingBMShahSS, et al.Transradial approach for flow diversion treatment of cerebral aneurysms: a multicenter study. J NeuroIntervent Surg2019; 11: 796–800.
36.
PhillipsTJCrockettMTSelkirkGD, et al.Transradial versus transfemoral access for anterior circulation mechanical thrombectomy: analysis of 375 consecutive cases. Stroke Vasc Neurol2021; 6: 207–213.
