Brachial approach for intracoronary stent implantation

A feasibility study

Jon R Resar, Matthew R. Wolff, Roger S Blumenthal, Vicki Coombs, Jeffrey A Brinker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Implantation of coronary artery stents via the percutaneous femoral approach is associated with a high rate of vascular complications at the access site related to the size of the entry hole and the intense anticoagulation required to prevent stent thrombosis. Therefore we studied the feasibility of using the left brachial approach utilizing open arterial repair for implantation of coronary artery stents. Intracoronary stent implantation via the femoral approach in 24 patients (group A) was compared with implantation via the brachial approach in 16 patients (group B). Baseline lesion characteristics were similar in the two groups. All stents in group A (n = 27 stents) were successfully delivered to their target vessel. One stent in group B (n = 18 stents) could not be delivered because of an inability to engage the coronary artery from the brachial approach. There were no significant differences in the angiographic outcome between the two groups. Complications including hematomas, hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, vascular injury requiring surgery, and pseudoaneurysm formation were significantly more common in group A than in group B ( 8 24 [33%] versus 1 16 [6%], respectively; p <0.05). In addition, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer for the femoral approach than the brachial approach (9.4 vs 6.5 days, respectively; p <0.05). Thus the left brachial approach for intracoronary stent implantation is technically feasible, safe, and associated with fewer local vascular complications and a shorter hospitalization than the femoral approach.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)300-304
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Heart Journal
Volume126
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1993

Fingerprint

Feasibility Studies
Stents
Arm
Thigh
Coronary Vessels
Blood Vessels
Length of Stay
Vascular System Injuries
False Aneurysm
Blood Transfusion
Hematoma
Hospitalization
Thrombosis
Hemorrhage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Brachial approach for intracoronary stent implantation : A feasibility study. / Resar, Jon R; Wolff, Matthew R.; Blumenthal, Roger S; Coombs, Vicki; Brinker, Jeffrey A.

In: American Heart Journal, Vol. 126, No. 2, 1993, p. 300-304.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6797d72dbefc45dfa14ce9aef0d8eee8,
title = "Brachial approach for intracoronary stent implantation: A feasibility study",
abstract = "Implantation of coronary artery stents via the percutaneous femoral approach is associated with a high rate of vascular complications at the access site related to the size of the entry hole and the intense anticoagulation required to prevent stent thrombosis. Therefore we studied the feasibility of using the left brachial approach utilizing open arterial repair for implantation of coronary artery stents. Intracoronary stent implantation via the femoral approach in 24 patients (group A) was compared with implantation via the brachial approach in 16 patients (group B). Baseline lesion characteristics were similar in the two groups. All stents in group A (n = 27 stents) were successfully delivered to their target vessel. One stent in group B (n = 18 stents) could not be delivered because of an inability to engage the coronary artery from the brachial approach. There were no significant differences in the angiographic outcome between the two groups. Complications including hematomas, hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, vascular injury requiring surgery, and pseudoaneurysm formation were significantly more common in group A than in group B ( 8 24 [33{\%}] versus 1 16 [6{\%}], respectively; p <0.05). In addition, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer for the femoral approach than the brachial approach (9.4 vs 6.5 days, respectively; p <0.05). Thus the left brachial approach for intracoronary stent implantation is technically feasible, safe, and associated with fewer local vascular complications and a shorter hospitalization than the femoral approach.",
author = "Resar, {Jon R} and Wolff, {Matthew R.} and Blumenthal, {Roger S} and Vicki Coombs and Brinker, {Jeffrey A}",
year = "1993",
doi = "10.1016/0002-8703(93)91043-E",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "126",
pages = "300--304",
journal = "American Heart Journal",
issn = "0002-8703",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Brachial approach for intracoronary stent implantation

T2 - A feasibility study

AU - Resar, Jon R

AU - Wolff, Matthew R.

AU - Blumenthal, Roger S

AU - Coombs, Vicki

AU - Brinker, Jeffrey A

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - Implantation of coronary artery stents via the percutaneous femoral approach is associated with a high rate of vascular complications at the access site related to the size of the entry hole and the intense anticoagulation required to prevent stent thrombosis. Therefore we studied the feasibility of using the left brachial approach utilizing open arterial repair for implantation of coronary artery stents. Intracoronary stent implantation via the femoral approach in 24 patients (group A) was compared with implantation via the brachial approach in 16 patients (group B). Baseline lesion characteristics were similar in the two groups. All stents in group A (n = 27 stents) were successfully delivered to their target vessel. One stent in group B (n = 18 stents) could not be delivered because of an inability to engage the coronary artery from the brachial approach. There were no significant differences in the angiographic outcome between the two groups. Complications including hematomas, hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, vascular injury requiring surgery, and pseudoaneurysm formation were significantly more common in group A than in group B ( 8 24 [33%] versus 1 16 [6%], respectively; p <0.05). In addition, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer for the femoral approach than the brachial approach (9.4 vs 6.5 days, respectively; p <0.05). Thus the left brachial approach for intracoronary stent implantation is technically feasible, safe, and associated with fewer local vascular complications and a shorter hospitalization than the femoral approach.

AB - Implantation of coronary artery stents via the percutaneous femoral approach is associated with a high rate of vascular complications at the access site related to the size of the entry hole and the intense anticoagulation required to prevent stent thrombosis. Therefore we studied the feasibility of using the left brachial approach utilizing open arterial repair for implantation of coronary artery stents. Intracoronary stent implantation via the femoral approach in 24 patients (group A) was compared with implantation via the brachial approach in 16 patients (group B). Baseline lesion characteristics were similar in the two groups. All stents in group A (n = 27 stents) were successfully delivered to their target vessel. One stent in group B (n = 18 stents) could not be delivered because of an inability to engage the coronary artery from the brachial approach. There were no significant differences in the angiographic outcome between the two groups. Complications including hematomas, hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, vascular injury requiring surgery, and pseudoaneurysm formation were significantly more common in group A than in group B ( 8 24 [33%] versus 1 16 [6%], respectively; p <0.05). In addition, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer for the femoral approach than the brachial approach (9.4 vs 6.5 days, respectively; p <0.05). Thus the left brachial approach for intracoronary stent implantation is technically feasible, safe, and associated with fewer local vascular complications and a shorter hospitalization than the femoral approach.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027179574&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027179574&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0002-8703(93)91043-E

DO - 10.1016/0002-8703(93)91043-E

M3 - Article

VL - 126

SP - 300

EP - 304

JO - American Heart Journal

JF - American Heart Journal

SN - 0002-8703

IS - 2

ER -