Hemodynamic Assessment of Severe XXXX via Transradial Approach is Safe.

@entity1 @entity472 @entity886
BACKGROUND: @entity1 with a discrepancy between clinical presentation and echocardiographic severity of @entity472 require invasive hemodynamic assessment. The comparative safety and feasibility of transradial cardiac catheterization in comparison with the traditional transfemoral approach in this usually complex subset of @entity1 is not known. We sought to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and time to cross severely stenosed aortic valves via radial approach. METHODS: All @entity1 who were successfully assessed for @entity472 with a dual-lumen catheter and found to have severe @entity472 (calculated @entity886 area <1.0 cm  ) in the last 2 years at our institution were retrospectively evaluated. Demographic, clinical, and procedural data were compared between the TF group (femoral arterial and venous access) and TR group (radial artery and basilic or cephalic vein access). RESULTS: A total of 176 @entity1 underwent left and right heart catheterization using femoral access, while 58 @entity1 had their procedures performed via radial artery and arm vein access. Fluoroscopy time was comparable between TR and TF groups (14.97    4.6 minutes vs 12.90    3.9 minutes, respectively; P=.23), as was the time to cross the @entity886 (132    209 seconds vs 128    226 seconds, respectively; P=.39). Incidence of cerebrovascular events was not different between the two groups (2.3% vs 1.75%, respectively; P=.14). Access-site complications were significantly higher in the TF group vs the TR group (5.11% vs 0%, respectively; P<.01). CONCLUSION: Transradial retrograde crossing of severely stenosed @entity886 is feasible using ordinary equipment, with reduced access-site related complications.
