Radial Artery and Ulnar Artery Occlusions Following Coronary Procedures and the Impact of Anticoagulation: ARTEMIS (Radial and Ulnar ARTEry Occlusion Meta‐AnalysIS) Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

BackgroundIncidence of radial artery occclusions (RAO) and ulnar artery occclusions (UAO) in coronary procedures, factors predisposing to forearm arteries occlusion, and the benefit of anticoaggulation vary significantly in existing literature. We sought to determine the incidence of RAO/UAO and the impact of anticoagulation intensity. Methods and ResultsMeta‐analysis of 112 studies assessing RAO and/or UAO (N=46 631) were included. Overall, there was no difference between crude RAO and UAO rates (5.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4–6.0 versus 4.0%; 95% CI, 2.8–5.8; P=0.171). The early occlusion rate (in‐hospital or within 7 days after procedure) was higher than the late occlusion rate. The detection rate of occlusion was higher with vascular ultrasonography compared with clinical evaluation only. Low‐dose heparin was associated with a significantly higher RAO rate compared with high‐dose heparin (7.2%; 95% CI, 5.5–9.4 versus 4.3%; 95% CI, 3.5–5.3; Q=8.81; P=0.003). Early occlusions in low‐dose heparin cohorts mounted at 8.0% (95% CI, 6.1–10.6). The RAO rate was higher after diagnostic angiographies compared with coronary interventions, presumably attributed to the higher intensity of anticoagulation in the latter group. Hemostatic techniques (patent versus nonpatent hemostasis), geography (US versus non‐US cohorts) and sheath size did not impact on vessel patency. ConclusionsRAO and UAO occur with similar frequency and in the order of 7% to 8% when evaluated early by vascular ultrasonography following coronary procedures. More‐intensive anticoagulation is protective. Late recanalization occurs in a substantial minority of patients.

Keywords

• coronary angiography
• radial occlusion
• transradial
• transulnar
• ulnar occlusion