Norimatsu Kenji, Kusumoto Takaaki, Yoshimoto Keisuke, Tsukamoto Mitoshi, Kuwano Takashi, Nishikawa Hiroaki, Matsumura Toshiyuki, Miura Shin-Ichiro
Department of Cardiology, Izumi General Medical Center, Izumi, 899-0131, Kagoshima, Japan.
Department of Clinical Engineering, Izumi General Medical Center, Izumi, 899-0131, Kagoshima, Japan.
Heart Vessels. 2019 Oct;34(10):1615-1620. doi: 10.1007/s00380-019-01404-2. Epub 2019 Apr 10.
Coronary catheterization by a distal radial approach at the site of the anatomical snuffbox has recently been reported to be both safe and useful. No data are available on the diameter of the distal radial artery (DRA) in Japan, and it is unclear whether the DRA is large enough to withstand the insertion of a conventional sheath by a traditional radial approach. We enrolled 142 patients who underwent coronary catheterization and evaluated the vessel diameter of the DRA using ultrasound. The vessel diameter of the DRA in the anatomical snuffbox (2.6 ± 0.5 mm) was significantly smaller than that of the proximal radial artery (PRA) at the conventional puncture site (3.1 ± 0.4 mm). The difference in vessel diameter between the DRA and PRA was 0.5 ± 0.4 mm, and the DRA/PRA ratio was 0.8 ± 0.1. Although the vessel diameter of the DRA was positively correlated with that of the PRA (r = 0.66, p < 0.0001), in some cases the DRA was extremely small compared to the PRA. When the vessel diameter of the DRA is smaller than the outer diameter of the sheath scheduled for use, we should puncture the PRA at the outset. We could perform coronary catheterization by a distal radial approach without major bleeding or adverse events, and there was no radial artery occlusion at the site of the anatomical snuffbox or the forearm. For coronary catheterization by a distal radial approach, we should evaluate whether there is sufficient vessel diameter using ultrasound before the procedure. In addition, this approach can be an effective option from the viewpoint of radial artery preservation.
最近有报道称,在解剖鼻烟壶部位采用桡动脉远端入路进行冠状动脉导管插入术既安全又有用。目前尚无关于日本桡动脉远端(DRA)直径的数据,并且尚不清楚DRA是否足够粗大以承受传统桡动脉入路插入常规鞘管。我们纳入了142例行冠状动脉导管插入术的患者,并使用超声评估了DRA的血管直径。解剖鼻烟壶处DRA的血管直径(2.6±0.5mm)明显小于传统穿刺部位的桡动脉近端(PRA)(3.1±0.4mm)。DRA与PRA的血管直径差异为0.5±0.4mm,DRA/PRA比值为0.8±0.1。虽然DRA的血管直径与PRA呈正相关(r = 0.66,p < 0.0001),但在某些情况下,DRA与PRA相比非常小。当DRA的血管直径小于预定使用的鞘管外径时,我们应一开始就穿刺PRA。我们可以通过桡动脉远端入路进行冠状动脉导管插入术,而不会出现大出血或不良事件,并且在解剖鼻烟壶部位或前臂处没有桡动脉闭塞。对于通过桡动脉远端入路进行冠状动脉导管插入术,我们应在手术前使用超声评估血管直径是否足够。此外,从桡动脉保留的角度来看,这种入路可以是一种有效的选择。