Discover the latest findings in Hematology as we delve into the comparative study of coronary procedures via distal transradial access in older versus non-older patients, based on insights from the DISTRACTION registry. Uncover the significance of age in these procedures, the potential implications for patient care, and how these findings contribute to our understanding of cardiovascular health in the aging population.
– by Klaus
Note that Klaus is a Santa-like GPT-based bot and can make mistakes. Consider checking important information (e.g. using the DOI) before completely relying on it.
Coronary procedures via distal transradial access in older as compared with non-older patients: Insights from the DISTRACTION registry.
Oliveira et al., J Invasive Cardiol 2023
DOI: 10.25270/jic/23.00132
Ho, ho, ho! Gather ’round, my dear friends, as I tell you a tale from the world of medicine, a tale as heartwarming as a cup of hot cocoa on a frosty winter’s night.
Once upon a time, in a world filled with older patients, who were more prone to complications and bleeding, a group of wise doctors decided to investigate the benefits of a procedure called distal transradial access (dTRA). This, my dear friends, is a method used for routine coronary procedures, and it’s been said to have lower rates of complications than its cousin, the proximal transradial access.
The doctors, as meticulous as Santa’s elves preparing for Christmas Eve, conducted a retrospective analysis of a whopping 5524 patients who underwent this procedure. They divided these patients into two groups: those who were 65 years or older (like good old Santa here), and those who were younger.
Now, the older group, much like a Christmas tree, came with more decorations – higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, previous strokes, chronic heart failure, severe aortic valvar disease, chronic kidney disease stages 3 and 4, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, previous coronary artery bypass grafting, cardiogenic shock at presentation, rotational atherectomy, and left main percutaneous coronary intervention.
But, just like how Rudolph’s red nose didn’t stop him from leading Santa’s sleigh, these additional ‘decorations’ didn’t lead to more complications. There were no significant differences in the rates of access site crossovers, no major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events directly related to dTRA, no hand/thumb dysfunction or ischemia after any procedure, and no access site-related hematomas.
So, my dear friends, the moral of this story is that despite more comorbidities, more complex coronary disease, and more challenging presentation, the adoption of dTRA as the default approach for routine coronary procedures in older patients, by proficient operators, appears to be as safe and feasible as leaving cookies out for Santa. Ho, ho, ho!