Efficiency and Safety of Radial Access versus Femoral Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

M. Abud, Lucio T. Padilla, G. Pedernera, P. Spaletra, P. Lamelas, A. Candiello, I. Cigalini, J. A. N. Lecaro, J. Belardi, F. Cura
{"title":"Efficiency and Safety of Radial Access versus Femoral Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention","authors":"M. Abud, Lucio T. Padilla, G. Pedernera, P. Spaletra, P. Lamelas, A. Candiello, I. Cigalini, J. A. N. Lecaro, J. Belardi, F. Cura","doi":"10.7775/AJC.87.1.13846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Radial access has been associated with many advantages in percutaneous coronary intervention compared with femoralaccess. However, many international registries have reported poor adherence to this technique. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy and operational efficiency of percutaneous coronary interventionaccording to the access site and the clinical presentation of the patient. Methods: A single-center, retrospective registry of patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary interventionwas conducted from March 2009 to June 2018 according to the vascular access. A Cox proportional-hazards model was usedto analyze the association between vascular access and risk of major cardiovascular events, and a logistic regression model was appliedto assess the relationship between major bleeding and access site complications. Total hospital stay and total hospitalizationcosts were measured to evaluate the operational efficiency. Results: A total of 8,155 percutaneous coronary interventions (mean follow-up of 1,448.6±714.1 days), via radial access (n=5,706)or femoral access (n=2,449), were included in the study. At 30 days, the risk of major cardiovascular events was significantly lowerwith the radial access (HR 0.66 [0.5-0.88], p=0.004), at the expense of a reduction in all-cause mortality. In addition, radial accesssignificantly reduced the risk of major bleeding (HR 0.33 [0.16-0.67], p=0.002) and access site complications (HR 0.72 [0.53-0.98],p=0.038). A significant interaction was observed between the vascular access site and the risk of events according to the clinicalpresentation on admission. Use of radial access was associated with a significant reduction in the length of total hospital stay (≈30%)and total hospitalization costs (≈15%).Conclusions: The use of radial access in percutaneous coronary intervention was safe and effective compared with the femoralaccess, with lower rates of major cardiovascular events at 30 days, lower risk of major bleeding and of access site complications.Moreover, radial access was associated with greater operational efficiency during hospitalization.","PeriodicalId":447734,"journal":{"name":"Argentine Journal of Cardiology","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argentine Journal of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7775/AJC.87.1.13846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Radial access has been associated with many advantages in percutaneous coronary intervention compared with femoralaccess. However, many international registries have reported poor adherence to this technique. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy and operational efficiency of percutaneous coronary interventionaccording to the access site and the clinical presentation of the patient. Methods: A single-center, retrospective registry of patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary interventionwas conducted from March 2009 to June 2018 according to the vascular access. A Cox proportional-hazards model was usedto analyze the association between vascular access and risk of major cardiovascular events, and a logistic regression model was appliedto assess the relationship between major bleeding and access site complications. Total hospital stay and total hospitalizationcosts were measured to evaluate the operational efficiency. Results: A total of 8,155 percutaneous coronary interventions (mean follow-up of 1,448.6±714.1 days), via radial access (n=5,706)or femoral access (n=2,449), were included in the study. At 30 days, the risk of major cardiovascular events was significantly lowerwith the radial access (HR 0.66 [0.5-0.88], p=0.004), at the expense of a reduction in all-cause mortality. In addition, radial accesssignificantly reduced the risk of major bleeding (HR 0.33 [0.16-0.67], p=0.002) and access site complications (HR 0.72 [0.53-0.98],p=0.038). A significant interaction was observed between the vascular access site and the risk of events according to the clinicalpresentation on admission. Use of radial access was associated with a significant reduction in the length of total hospital stay (≈30%)and total hospitalization costs (≈15%).Conclusions: The use of radial access in percutaneous coronary intervention was safe and effective compared with the femoralaccess, with lower rates of major cardiovascular events at 30 days, lower risk of major bleeding and of access site complications.Moreover, radial access was associated with greater operational efficiency during hospitalization.
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中桡动脉通路与股动脉通路的有效性和安全性
背景:在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中,桡动脉通路与股骨通路相比具有许多优势。然而,许多国际注册机构报告说这种技术没有得到很好的遵守。目的:根据患者的临床表现和入路位置,评价经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的安全性、有效性和手术效率。方法:对2009年3月至2018年6月接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的冠状动脉疾病患者进行单中心回顾性登记。采用Cox比例风险模型分析血管通路与主要心血管事件风险之间的关系,采用logistic回归模型评估大出血与通路部位并发症之间的关系。测量总住院时间和总住院费用,以评估操作效率。结果:共纳入8155例经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(平均随访1448.6±714.1天),经桡动脉介入治疗(n= 5706)或经股动脉介入治疗(n= 2449)。30天时,桡动脉通路显著降低了主要心血管事件的风险(HR 0.66 [0.5-0.88], p=0.004),但全因死亡率降低。此外,桡骨通路可显著降低大出血(HR 0.33 [0.16-0.67], p=0.002)和通路部位并发症(HR 0.72 [0.53-0.98],p=0.038)的风险。根据入院时的临床表现,观察到血管通路部位与事件风险之间存在显著的相互作用。径向通道的使用与总住院时间(≈30%)和总住院费用(≈15%)的显著减少相关。结论:桡骨通路在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中比股骨通路安全有效,30天内主要心血管事件发生率低,大出血和通路部位并发症风险低。此外,放射状通路与住院期间更高的操作效率相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信