Title |
Contemporary Arterial Access in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory
|
---|---|
Published in |
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.08.058 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Yader Sandoval, M. Nicholas Burke, Angie S. Lobo, Daniel L. Lips, Arnold H. Seto, Ivan Chavez, Paul Sorajja, Mazen S. Abu-Fadel, Yale Wang, Anil Poulouse, Mario Gössl, Michael Mooney, Jay Traverse, David Tierney, Emmanouil S. Brilakis |
Abstract |
Obtaining femoral and radial arterial access in the cardiac catheterization laboratory using state-of-the-art techniques is essential to optimize outcomes, patient satisfaction, and procedural efficiency. Although transradial access is increasingly used for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, femoral access remains necessary for numerous procedures, many requiring large-bore access, including complex high-risk coronary interventions, structural procedures, and procedures involving mechanical circulatory support. For femoral access, contemporary access techniques should combine the use of fluoroscopy, ultrasound, micropuncture needle, femoral angiography, and vascular closure devices, when feasible. For radial access, ultrasound may reveal important anatomic features and expedite access. Despite randomized controlled trials supporting use of routine ultrasound guidance for femoral and/or radial arterial access, ultrasound remains underused in cardiac catheterization laboratories. This article reviews contemporary techniques to achieve optimal arterial access in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 102 | 39% |
United Kingdom | 12 | 5% |
Spain | 11 | 4% |
Mexico | 10 | 4% |
Australia | 8 | 3% |
Argentina | 6 | 2% |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 5 | 2% |
India | 5 | 2% |
Italy | 4 | 2% |
Other | 32 | 12% |
Unknown | 65 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 169 | 65% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 45 | 17% |
Scientists | 36 | 14% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 9 | 3% |
Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 119 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 20 | 17% |
Researcher | 14 | 12% |
Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 6% |
Other | 20 | 17% |
Unknown | 36 | 30% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 43% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 9% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 2% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | <1% |
Other | 4 | 3% |
Unknown | 47 | 39% |