Clinical Research in Cardiology

, Volume 104, Issue 9, pp 773–781 | Cite as

Transradial left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy: assessment of safety and efficacy

  • Tim G. Schäufele
  • Raphael Spittler
  • Artemisia Karagianni
  • Peter Ong
  • Karin Klingel
  • Reinhard Kandolf
  • Heiko Mahrholdt
  • Udo Sechtem
Original Paper

Abstract

Background

We aimed at assessing the safety and efficacy of a systematic transradial approach for left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy using a new hydrophilic sheathless guiding catheter.

Methods and results

Forty-two consecutive patients were included. The transradial success rate was 98 % (41 of 42). In one case, cross over to femoral access due to irreversible spasm of the right radial artery was necessary. No radial spasm was observed in the other 41 patients. Depending on the indication, several other procedures, such as coronary angiography or ventricular angiography, were additionally performed through the same transradial access site. Median fluoroscopy time was 7.9 min. The mean dose area product was 1867 cGy × cm2. All biopsy samples were graded as good or excellent quality. No patient had any complications. Immediate post-procedural ambulation could be achieved in all patients. Radial artery patency was confirmed by duplex sonography 24 h after removal of the guide.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrates safety and efficacy of a systematic transradial access for left ventricular EMB using a highly hydrophilic sheathless guiding catheter. This is of clinical importance since this new technique may overcome critical limitations of the common approach.

Keywords

Transradial access Transfemoral access Endomyocardial biopsy Complications Sheathless guiding catheter Left ventricular biopsy Myocardial disease 

Abbreviations

ACH

Intracoronary acetylcholine testing

CA

Coronary angiography

EMB

Endomyocardial biopsy

FFR

Fractional flow reserve

LVA

Left ventricular angiogram

LV

Left ventricle

LV-EF

Left ventricular ejection fraction

PCI

Percutaneous coronary angioplasty

RHC

Right heart catheterization

RV

Right ventricle

TRA

Transradial access

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Mrs. Nermina Soskic, BS for helping with the data collection. This work was funded in part by the Robert Bosch Foundation (clinical research Grant for inflammatory heart disease KKF-11-18, KKF-13-2).

References

  1. 1.
    Ardehali H, Howard DL, Hariri A, Qasim A, Hare JM, Baughman KL, Kasper EK (2005) A positive endomyocardial biopsy result for sarcoid is associated with poor prognosis in patients with initially unexplained cardiomyopathy. Am Heart J 150(3):459–463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Austin BA, Duffy B, Tan C, Rodriguez ER, Starling RC, Desai MY (2009) Comparison of functional status, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters to mortality in endomyocardial-biopsy proven cardiac amyloidosis. Am J Cardiol 103(10):1429–1433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baccouche H, Mahrholdt H, Meinhardt G, Merher R, Voehringer M, Hill S, Klingel K, Kandolf R, Sechtem U, Yilmaz A (2009) Diagnostic synergy of non-invasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance and invasive endomyocardial biopsy in troponin-positive patients without coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 30(23):2869–2879CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper LT Jr (2009) Myocarditis. N Engl J Med 360(15):1526–1538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frustaci A, Pieroni M, Chimenti C (2002) The role of endomyocardial biopsy in the diagnosis of cardiomyopathies. Ital Heart J 3(6):348–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yilmaz A, Kindermann I, Kindermann M, Mahfoud F, Ukena C, Athanasiadis A, Hill S, Mahrholdt H, Voehringer M, Schieber M et al (2010) Comparative evaluation of left and right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy: differences in complication rate and diagnostic performance. Circulation 122(9):900–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper LT, Baughman KL, Feldman AM, Frustaci A, Jessup M, Kuhl U, Levine GN, Narula J, Starling RC, Towbin J et al (2007) The role of endomyocardial biopsy in the management of cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the European Society of Cardiology Endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 28(24):3076–3093CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, Niemela K, Xavier D, Widimsky P, Budaj A, Niemela M, Valentin V, Lewis BS et al (2011) Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 377(9775):1409–1420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rao SV, Cohen MG, Kandzari DE, Bertrand OF, Gilchrist IC (2010) The transradial approach to percutaneous coronary intervention: historical perspective, current concepts, and future directions. J Am Coll Cardiol 55(20):2187–2195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rao SV, Ou FS, Wang TY, Roe MT, Brindis R, Rumsfeld JS, Peterson ED (2008) Trends in the prevalence and outcomes of radial and femoral approaches to percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 1(4):379–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheaito R, Benamer H, Hovasse T, Tritar A, Hage F, Garot P, Lefevre T, Unterseeh T, Chevalier B, Morice MC et al (2014) Feasibility and safety of transradial coronary interventions using a 6.5-F sheathless guiding catheter in patients with small radial arteries: A multicenter registry. Catheter Cardiovasc IntervGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilchrist IC, Kharabsheh S, Nickolaus MJ, Reddy R (2002) Radial approach to right heart catheterization: early experience with a promising technique. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 55(1):20–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sueda S, Ochi N, Kawada H, Matsuda S, Hayashi Y, Tsuruoka T, Uraoka T (1999) Frequency of provoked coronary vasospasm in patients undergoing coronary arteriography with spasm provocation test of acetylcholine. Am J Cardiol 83(8):1186–1190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Brown MW, Andrews ML (2002) Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 346(12):877–883CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Packer DL, Boineau R, Domanski M, Troutman C, Anderson J, Johnson G et al (2005) Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 352(3):225–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Swedberg K, Komajda M, Bohm M, Borer JS, Ford I, Dubost-Brama A, Lerebours G, Tavazzi L (2010) Ivabradine and outcomes in chronic heart failure (SHIFT): a randomised placebo-controlled study. Lancet 376(9744):875–885CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Romagnoli E, Biondi-Zoccai G, Sciahbasi A, Politi L, Rigattieri S, Pendenza G, Summaria F, Patrizi R, Borghi A, Di Russo C et al (2012) Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 60(24):2481–2489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kristic I, Lukenda J (2011) Radial artery spasm during transradial coronary procedures. J Invasive Cardiol 23(12):527–531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moyer CD, Gilchrist IC (2005) Transradial bilateral cardiac catheterization and endomyocardial bioposy: a feasibility study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 64(2):134–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burke RJ (2005) Hospital restructuring stressors, support, and nursing staff perceptions of unit functioning. Health Care Manag (Frederick) 24(1):21–28Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Rosa S, Torella D, Caiazzo G, Giampa S, Indolfi C (2014) Left radial access for percutaneous coronary procedures: from neglected to performer? A meta-analysis of 14 studies including 7,603 procedures. Int J Cardiol 171(1):66–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kotowycz MA, Dzavik V (2012) Radial artery patency after transradial catheterization. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 5(1):127–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim G. Schäufele
    • 1
  • Raphael Spittler
    • 1
  • Artemisia Karagianni
    • 1
  • Peter Ong
    • 1
  • Karin Klingel
    • 2
  • Reinhard Kandolf
    • 2
  • Heiko Mahrholdt
    • 1
  • Udo Sechtem
    • 1
  1. 1.Abteilung für KardiologieRobert Bosch Krankenhaus StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Abteilung für Molekulare PathologieUniversitätsklinikum TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations