Abstract
Background: Acute Kidney Injury as a complication of cardiac catheterization is associated with increased length of hospital stay and mortality. In recent years, the use of the radial artery for cardiac catheterization is increasing in frequency.
Objective: The objective of this concise review was to evaluate the method of cardiac access site and its impact on Acute Kidney Injury following cardiac catheterization.
Methods: After a thorough search on Medline, Google Scholar and PubMed, we included all the literature relevant to Acute kidney injury following transradial and transfemoral cardiac catheterization.
Results: While acute kidney injury was caused due to a variety of reasons, it was important to consider each case on an individual basis. We found a trend towards increased use of transradial approach in patients at high risk of developing kidney injury. However, limitations such as operator experience, anatomical challenges and so on do exist with this approach.
Conclusion: Transradial access offers several advantages to a patient at high risk of acute kidney injury undergoing cardiac catheterization. Further large studies are needed to establish this trend in the years ahead.
Keywords: Transradial, transfemoral, catheterization, kidney injury, vascular access, anatomical challenges.
Graphical Abstract
[1]
McCullough PA, Adam A, Becker CR, et al. Epidemiology and prognostic implications of contrast-induced nephropathy. Am J Cardiol 2006; 98(6A): 5K-13K.
[2]
Scolari F, Ravani P, Gaggi R, et al. The challenge of diagnosing atheroembolic renal disease: Clinical features and prognostic factors. Circulation 2007; 116: 298-304.
[4]
Ram P, Mezue K, Pressman G, Rangaswami J. Acute kidney injury post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Clin Cardiol 2017; 40(12): 1357-62.
[5]
Silver SA, Chertow GM. The economic consequences of acute kidney injury. Nephron 2017; 137(4): 297-301.
[6]
Best PJ, Lennon R, Ting HH, et al. The impact of renal insufficiency on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39: 1113-9.
[7]
Andò G, Costa F, Trio O, Oreto G, Valgimigli M. Impact of vascular access on acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2016; 17(5): 333-8.
[8]
Rao SV, Ou FS, Wang TY, et al. Trends in the prevalence and outcomes of radial and femoral approaches to percutaneous coronary intervention: A report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 1: 379-86.
[9]
Rigattieri S, Valsecchi O, Sciahbasi A, et al. Current practice of transradial approach for coronary procedures: A Survey by the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) and the Italian Radial Club. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2017; 18(3): 154-9.
[10]
Biachi R, D’Acierno L, Crisci M, et al. From femoral to radial approach in coronary intervention: Review of literature and 6 years single-center experience. Angiology 2017; 69(4): 281-7.
[11]
Ando G, Cortese B, Russo F. MATRIX Investigators. Acute kidney injury after radial or femoral access for invasive acute coronary syndrome management: AKI-MATRIX. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017. S0735-1097(17)36897-36903. [Epub ahead of print].
[12]
Kellum JA, Lameire N, Aspelin P, et al. Kidney disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int 2012; 2(1): 1-138.
[13]
Tsai TT, Patel UD, Chang TI, et al. Contemporary incidence, predictors, and outcomes of acute kidney injury in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: Insights from The NCDR Cath-PCI Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7(1): 1-9.
[14]
Fukumoto Y, Tsutsui H, Tsuchihashi M, Masumoto A, Takeshita A. Cholesterol Embolism Study I. The incidence and risk factors of cholesterol embolization syndrome, a complication of cardiac catheterization: A prospective study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42: 211-6.
[15]
Bhat FA, Changal KH, Raina H, Tramboo NA, Rather HA. Transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty–A prospective, randomized comparison. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2017; 17(1): 23.
[16]
Eggebrecht H, Oldenburg O, Dirsch O, et al. Potential embolization by atherosclerotic debris dislodged from aortic wall during cardiac catheterization: histological and clinical findings in 7,621 patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2000; 49(4): 389-94.
[17]
Vuurmans T, Byrne J, Fretz E, et al. Chronic kidney injury in patients after cardiac catheterisation or percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of radial and femoral approaches (from the British Columbia Cardiac and Renal Registries). Heart 2010; 96: 1538-42.
[18]
Nikolsky E, Mehran R, Lasic Z, et al. Low hematocrit predicts contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary interventions. Kidney Int 2005; 67: 706-13.
[19]
Mehta SK, Frutkin AD, Lindsey JB, et al. Bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: The development of a clinical risk algorithm from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 2(3): 222-9.
[20]
Bhatty S, Cooke R, Shetty R, Jovin IS. Femoral vascular access-site complications in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: diagnosis and management. Interv Cardiol 2011; 3(4): 503-14.
[21]
Sherev DA, Shaw RE, Brent BN. Angiographic predictors of femoral access site complications: Implication for planned percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005; 65(2): 196-202.
[22]
Fischman AM, Swinburne NC, Patel RS. A technical guide describing the use of transradial access technique for endovascular interventions. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2015; 18(2): 58-65.
[23]
Romagnoli E, Biondi-Zoccai G, Sciahbasi A, et al. Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: The RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60(24): 2481-9.
[24]
Roy P, Raya V, Okabe T, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of post-percutaneous coronary intervention nephropathy in patients with diabetes mellitus and normal baseline serum creatinine levels. Am J Cardiol 2008; 101(11): 1544-9.
[25]
McCullough PA, Wolyn R, Rocher LL, Levin RN, O’Neill WW. Acute renal failure after coronary intervention: Incidence, risk factors, and relationship to mortality. Am J Med 1997; 103(5): 368-75.
[26]
Mohammed NMA, Mahfouz A, Achkar K, Rafie IM, Hajar R. Contrast-induced Nephropathy. Heart Views 2013; 14(3): 106-16.
[27]
Caspi O, Habib M, Cohen Y, et al. Acute kidney injury after primary angioplasty: Is contrast‐induced nephropathy the culprit? J Am Heart Assoc 2017; 6(6): 1-10.
[28]
Ohno Y, Maekawa Y, Miyata H, et al. Impact of periprocedural bleeding on incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62(14): 1260-6.
[29]
Kooiman J, Seth M, Dixon S, et al. Risk of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary interventions using radial versus femoral vascular access: Insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7(2): 190-8.
[30]
Cortese B, Sciahbasi A, Sebik R, et al. Comparison of risk of acute kidney injury after primary percutaneous coronary interventions with the transradial approach versus the transfemoral approach (from the PRIPITENA urban registry). Am J Cardiol 2014; 114(6): 820-5.
[31]
Damluji A, Cohen MG, Smairat R, Steckbeck R, Moscucci M, Gilchrist IC. The incidence of acute kidney injury after cardiac catheterization or PCI: A comparison of radial vs. femoral approach. Int J Cardiol 2014; 173(3): 595-7.
[32]
Andò G, de Gregorio C, Morabito G, Trio O, Saporito F, Oreto G. Renal function–adjusted contrast volume redefines the baseline estimation of contrast-induced acute kidney injury risk in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7(4): 465-72.
[33]
Andò G, Costa F, Boretti I, Trio O, Valgimigli M. Benefit of radial approach in reducing the incidence of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of 22,108 patients. Int J Cardiol 2015; 179: 309-11.
[34]
Feldkamp T, Luedemann M, Spehlmann ME, et al. Radial access protects from contrast media induced nephropathy after cardiac catheterization procedures. Clin Res Cardiol 2018; 107(2): 148-57.
[35]
Vora AN, Stanislawski M, Grunwald GK, et al. Association between chronic kidney disease and rates of transfusion and progression to end‐stage renal disease in patients undergoing transradial versus transfemoral cardiac catheterization—An analysis from the veterans affairs Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking (CART) Program. J Am Heart Assoc 2017; 6(4): 1-9.
[36]
Pancholy MS, Skelding K, Scott T, Blankenship J, Pancholy SB. Effect of access site choice on acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2017; 120(12): 2141-5.
[37]
Steinvil A, Garcia-Garcia HM, Rogers T, et al. Comparison of propensity score-matched analysis of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention with transradial versus transfemoral approaches. Am J Cardiol 2017; 119(10): 1507-11.
[38]
Guillon B, Ecarnot F, Marcucci C, et al. Incidence, predictors and impact on 6 month mortality of three different definitions of contrast-induced acute kidney injury after coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol 2018; 121(7): 818-24.
[39]
Barbieri L, Verdoia M, Suryapranata H, De Luca G. Novara Atherosclerosis Study Group. Impact of vascular access on the development of contrast induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention. Int J Cardiol 2018. [Epub ahead of print].
[40]
Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: A randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2015; 385(9986): 2465-76.
[41]
Yan ZX, Zhou YJ, Zhao YX, et al. Safety and feasibility of transradial approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. Chin Med J 2008; 121(9): 782-6.
[42]
Sakai H, Ikeda S, Harada T, et al. Limitations of successive transradial approach in the same arm: the Japanese experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2001; 54(2): 204-8.
[43]
Rao SV, Cohen MG, Kandzari DE, Bertrand OF, Gilchrist IC. The transradial approach to percutaneous coronary intervention: Historical perspective, current concepts, and future directions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55(20): 2187-95.
[44]
Bhan A, Gupta V, Choudhary SK, et al. Radial artery in CABG: Could the early results be comparable to internal mammary artery graft? Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 67(6): 1631-6.
[45]
Hamon M, Lipiecki J, Carrié D, et al. Silent cerebral infarcts after cardiac catheterization: A randomized comparison of radial and femoral approaches. Am Heart J 2012; 164(4): 449-54.
[46]
Patel VG, Brayton KM, Kumbhani DJ, Banerjee S, Brilakis ES. Meta-analysis of stroke after transradial versus transfemoral artery catheterization. Int J Cardiol 2013; 168(6): 5234-8.
Article Metrics
47
2
1
1