Abstract Background Rotational atherectomy (RA) is a well-established therapy for the treatment of heavily calcified coronary lesions. While the radial approach has evolved into the gold-standard for standard percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), RA is still often performed via a femoral approach. Concerns over guiding size, sheath size, the delivery of the burr as well as the need for a temporary pacemaker play a role in that decision. Methods This retrospective analysis includes all patients undergoing RA from 03/2013 to 06/2019 at one institution. We sought to investigate the procedural outcome and the influence of the percutaneous approach. Results A total of 228 patients were planned to undergo RA. Based on operator preference, RA was attempted via the radial approach (RAD) in 78 (34.2%) patients and via the femoral approach (FEM) in 150 (65.8%) patients. The procedure failed in 2.6% (RAD 1.3% vs. FEM 3.3%, p=0.359) due to crossing failure of either the RotaWire (n=5) or the burr (n=1). The left anterior descending was the most frequently treated vessel in the radial group and significantly more often targeted in comparison to the femoral group (LAD: RAD 44.6% vs. FEM 26.5%, p=0.004). All other vessels were similarly often treated in both groups (LM: RAD 13.3% vs. FEM 17.3%, p=0.414; LCX: RAD 15.7% vs. FEM 23.5%, p=0.155; RCA: RAD 25.3% vs. FEM 31.5%, p=0.315; Bypass: RAD 1.2% vs. FEM 1.2%, p=0.984). RAD-RA was significantly more often performed with a 6F sheath in comparison to FEM-RA (RAD 47.4% vs. FEM 16.7%, p<0.001). A 7F sheath was used in 52.6% of the cases for RAD-RA (men: 85.4%, women: 14.6%, p=0.176) and is therefore the most frequently chosen sheath size within that group. A 7F or 8F sheath was used in 75.3%, respectively 8.0% of the cases in the FEM group (7F: p<0.001; 8F: p=0.010 compared to RAD). There were no significant differences regarding the burr sizes (RAD 1.43±0.17mm vs FEM 1.41±0.18mm, p=0.442). Whereas the placement of a temporary pacemaker was equal in both groups (RAD 20.8% vs. FEM 30.8%, p=0.110), the femoral group showed a higher number of patients with any back-up pacing, permanent or temporary (RAD 24.7% vs. FEM 39.0%, p=0.031). There were no significant differences in terms of fluoroscopy time (RAD 00:24:65±00:12:48 vs. FEM 00:28:33±00:17:05, p=0.180) and the volume of contrast medium (RAD 217.2±96.3ml vs. FEM 192.9±86.0ml, p=0.118). Moreover, procedural complications (RAD 17.9% vs. FEM 18.0%, p=0.992) and access site related complications (RAD 6.4% vs. FEM 10.0%, p=0.363) occurred equivalently in both groups. Conclusion This analysis shows that RA via radial access is as safe and successful as via femoral access. Despite the more frequent use of 6F sheaths, burr sizes did not differ. Additionally, neither fluoroscopy time nor contrast volume indicated a higher complexity of the RAD approach. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
Read full abstract