z-logo
Premium
Occasional‐operator percutaneous brachial coronary angiography: First, do no arm
Author(s) -
HildickSmith David J.R.,
Khan Zafar I.,
Shapiro Leonard M.,
Petch Michael C.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.10329
Subject(s) - medicine , arteriotomy , brachial artery , percutaneous , hematoma , femoral artery , surgery , angiography , radiology , axillary artery , dissection (medical) , radial artery , cardiac catheterization , coronary artery disease , cardiology , artery , blood pressure
The percutaneous brachial approach to coronary angiography is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be the easiest of the arm approaches. Predominantly femoral operators may therefore be encouraged to use the percutaneous brachial approach as an occasional procedure. We decided to investigate prospectively whether this was a reasonable strategy by examining outcome in patients who underwent percutaneous brachial cardiac catheterization by occasional brachial operators. Between October 1997 and 2000, 55 patients underwent percutaneous brachial coronary angiography (0.6% of coronary angiographies), aged 66 ± 10 years, of whom 40 (73%) were male. Chief indications for a brachial approach were peripheral vascular disease in 35 (64%), failed femoral approach in 10 (18%), and orthopnoea in 5 (9%). The procedure was completed successfully in 46 patients (84%). Reasons for failure were failure of access (two), brachial artery spasm (one), inability to negotiate brachial/subclavian tortuosity (two), dissection of the brachial artery (two), and inability to intubate a vein graft (two). Six patients required catheterization from an alternative site (brachial arteriotomy in two, percutaneous transradial in two, femoral in two), with success in all. There were complications of varying severity in 20 patients (36%). Major complications were false aneurysm requiring surgical repair (one), large brachial hematoma requiring surgical exploration and arterial repair (one), and hematoma with clinical median nerve dysfunction for one month. Minor complications included need for repeat coronary angiography via alternative approach (six), weakness of radial pulse < 24 hr (two), brachial artery dissection without clinical sequelae (two), brachial artery spasm terminating procedure (one), and wound oozing (three). Percutaneous brachial coronary angiography is a hazardous procedure when undertaken by occasional brachial operators. Complications are unacceptably frequent. As with all practical procedures, complication rates are likely to be inversely proportional to operator volumes. Patients requiring an arm approach should be referred to operators with high‐volume brachial or radial experience. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2002;57:161–165. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here