Kovacic Jason C, Skelding Kimberly A, Arya Shipra, Ballard-Hernandez Jennifer, Goyal Mayank, Ijioma Nkechinyere N, Kicielinski Kimberly, Takahashi Edwin A, Ujueta Francisco, Dangas George
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Jan;18(1):e000094. doi: 10.1161/HCV.0000000000000094. Epub 2024 Dec 4.
Transradial arterial access has transformed the field of coronary interventions, where it has several advantages over femoral access, such as reduced bleeding and access site complications, improved patient comfort, shorter time to ambulation after the procedure, reduced length of hospital stay, and potentially reduced mortality rates. Because of these benefits, as well as the concurrent expanding indications for various endovascular therapies, there is growing interest in adopting radial access for peripheral vascular interventions. However, radial access can present challenges, and specialized equipment for peripheral interventions through this route are under development. Nevertheless, a growing number of studies, largely comprising single-center and registry data, have broadly suggested that transradial arterial access is likely to be safe and associated with reduced bleeding and local access site complications for most peripheral interventions compared with transfemoral access. Large, prospective randomized trials are lacking, and the question of any effect on mortality rates has not been addressed. Whereas the field of transradial arterial access for peripheral vascular interventions is in development, it is clear that this approach, at least with available equipment, will not be suitable for all patients, and careful case selection is paramount. Furthermore, the remaining knowledge gaps must be addressed, and robust outcome data obtained, to allow full understanding of the factors that determine optimal patient, lesion, and equipment selection. Nevertheless, the use of transradial arterial access for peripheral vascular interventions holds great promise, particularly if the necessary technologic advances are rapid and favorable clinical trial data continue to emerge.
经桡动脉途径已改变了冠状动脉介入治疗领域,在该领域它相对于股动脉途径有多个优势,如出血和穿刺部位并发症减少、患者舒适度提高、术后下床活动时间缩短、住院时间缩短以及可能降低死亡率。由于这些益处,以及各种血管内治疗的适应证同时不断扩大,采用桡动脉途径进行外周血管介入治疗的兴趣日益浓厚。然而,桡动脉途径可能带来挑战,且用于经此途径进行外周介入治疗的专用设备正在研发中。尽管如此,越来越多的研究(主要包括单中心和登记数据)广泛表明,与经股动脉途径相比,经桡动脉途径进行大多数外周介入治疗可能是安全的,且出血和局部穿刺部位并发症减少。目前缺乏大型前瞻性随机试验,且对死亡率的任何影响问题尚未得到解决。虽然外周血管介入治疗的经桡动脉途径领域尚在发展中,但很明显,这种方法,至少就现有设备而言,并不适用于所有患者,谨慎的病例选择至关重要。此外,必须填补剩余的知识空白,并获得有力的结果数据,以便充分了解决定最佳患者、病变和设备选择的因素。尽管如此,经桡动脉途径用于外周血管介入治疗前景广阔,特别是如果必要的技术进步迅速且有利的临床试验数据不断涌现。