Abstract
Cutting balloon angioplasty can reduce the restenosis rate more than conventional balloon angioplasty, but is traditionally performed through a femoral artery. However, it is not clear how useful a transradial approach would be for cutting balloon angioplasty. This study was conducted to examine the safety, feasibility, and limitations of transradial as opposed to transfemoral cutting balloon angioplasty.
From November 1999 to August 2001, 177 patients underwent cutting balloon coronary angioplasty. We compared the success rate, angiographic results, and complication rates of two groups of patients, those undergoing transradial (168 lesions from 153 patients) and those undergoing transfemoral (24 lesions from 24 patients) cutting balloon angioplasty. In both groups of patients who had similar clinical and target lesion characteristics, the percentage of lesions that required balloon predilation (27.4% vs 29.2%), stenting (7.7% vs 4.2%), and adjunct balloon dilation (28.0% vs 33.3%) due to dissection (35.7% vs 33.3%) or suboptimal results were comparable. Both approaches achieved a 100% primary success rate with similar acute gain (2.02±0.68 mm vs 1.94±0.70 mm), residual (luminal) diameter stenosis (19.2±11.7% vs 17.0±12.7%), proportion of lesions that achieved TIMI 3 flow (98.8% vs 100%), and clinical success rate (98.8% vs 95.8%). However, patients undergoing transradial cutting balloon angioplasty had earlier ambulation and a significantly shorter hospital stay than those undergoing a transfemoral approach (2.80±2.67 days vs 4.75±5.44 days, P=0.005).
We conclude that the transradial approach is a feasible and safe alternative to the transfemoral approach for cutting balloon angioplasty. In addition, it offers patients early ambulation and a short hospital stay.
