Conventional vascular access site approach versus fully trans‐wrist approach for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: a multicenter registry



To evaluate the incidence of vascular complication and major bleeding in patients undergoing chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a fully trans‐wrist access (TWA) approach versus a conventional approach based on trans‐femoral access (TFA).


TFA is the preferred vascular access in CTO PCI, but it has been associated with a non‐negligible risk of complications.


This retrospective registry included all patients undergoing CTO PCI at five institutions between July 2011 and October 2018. Patients were divided into two groups: Conventional (patients treated with at least one TFA) and Fully TWA (subjects exclusively treated with one or two TWA). The primary safety endpoint was a composite of vascular complications and major bleeding. The primary efficacy endpoint was procedural success.


We included 1,900 patients (Conventional n = 1,496 and Fully TWA n = 404). Conventional patients showed higher occlusion complexity (J‐CTO score 2.1 ± 1.2 vs. 1.5 ± 1.1, p < .001). Procedural success showed no significant difference between both groups (85.7 vs. 83.0%, p = .17). The primary safety endpoint occurred more frequently in the Conventional group (10.3 vs. 4.5%, p < .001), driven by vascular complications (9.4 vs. 3.7%, p < .001). On multivariate analysis, not using a Fully TWA approach was an independent predictor of the study endpoint, after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, body mass index, chronic kidney disease, prior coronary artery bypass graft, and J‐CTO score.


Embracing a Fully TWA approach for CTO PCI might be associated with lower incidence of a composite endpoint of vascular complications and major bleeding, compared with a Conventional approach.


No Comments

Write a Reply or Comment