Fluoroscopy vs. Traditional Guided Femoral Arterial Access and the Use of Closure Devices: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of accessing the common femoral artery (CFA) using fluoroscopic guidance (FG) versus traditional anatomic landmark guidance (TALG) during cardiac catheterization and to determine the effect of the two modalities on the appropriateness for use of vascular closure devices (VCDs). Background: Previous studies have shown a consistent relationship between the head of the femur and the CFA, yet there is no prospective data validating the superiority of fluoroscopy-assisted CFA access. Methods: A total of 972 patients were randomized to either FG or TALG access. The primary endpoint of the study was the angiographic suitability of the puncture site for VCD use. Secondary endpoints included arteriotomy location, time and number of attempts needed to obtain access, and the incidence of vascular complications. Results: Of these, 474 patients were randomized into the FG arm and 498 patients into the TALG arm. A total of 79.5% of patients in the fluoroscopy arm and 80.7% in the traditional arm (P = 0.7) were deemed angiographically suitable for VCD based on the arteriotomy. The fluoroscopy group had significantly less arteriotomies below the inferior border of the head of the femur (P = 0.03). Total time for sheath insertion (105.7 +/- 130.7 vs. 106.5 +/- 152.6 sec) and number of arterial punctures (1.1 +/- 0.4 vs. 1.1 +/- 0.5) did not differ among the FG and TALG, respectively. The rates of vascular complications were not different. Conclusion: The angiographic suitability for VCD was not different between FG and TALG groups. Fluoroscopy decreased the number of low arteriotomies. The time to sheath insertion, number of arterial punctures needed to obtain access, and the incidence of complications were also similar. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.