经桡动脉远端通道的常规冠状动脉手术对男性和女性患者的影响:来自分散注册表的见解。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Marcos Danillo Oliveira, Adriano Caixeta
{"title":"经桡动脉远端通道的常规冠状动脉手术对男性和女性患者的影响:来自分散注册表的见解。","authors":"Marcos Danillo Oliveira, Adriano Caixeta","doi":"10.25270/jic/25.00130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have highlighted the benefits of distal over proximal transradial access, including lower rates of radial artery occlusion and faster hemostasis. Despite the increasing adoption of distal transradial access by interventionalists, there is a lack of data addressing gender-specific differences. This study aimed to assess those differences in routine coronary procedures via distal transradial access.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of a large, real-world sample of 6871 consecutive all-comers who underwent coronary procedures via distal transradial access using data from the DISTRACTION registry.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean patient ages were 63.8 ± 15.7 years, 63.5 ± 17.7, and 64.4 ± 11.1 years for total, male, and female groups, respectively; 65% of the patients were male. In the female group, there was statistically significant predominance of hypertension (82.2% vs 74%), diabetes (46.8% vs 37%), obesity (29.3% vs 22.2%), severe mitral valve disease (3.1% vs 1.1%), coronary angiography-only (48.7% vs 36%), and access-site crossovers (3.1% vs 1.5%). In the male group, there were more rates of former or current smoking (54.2% vs 40.8%), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (29.8% vs 19.7%), previous coronary artery bypass grafting (4.5% vs 1.9%), ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (24.2% vs 18.5%), PCI (66.1% vs 52.5%), left main PCI (2.6% vs 1.7%), redo right distal transradial access (15.3% vs 9.9%), and 7F sheath size (2.6% vs 0.9%). No major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events directly related to distal transradial access, no hand/thumb dysfunction or ischemia after any procedure, and no relevant access-site-related bleeding were recorded.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The adoption of distal transradial access by proficient operators as the default approach for routine coronary procedures appears to be safe and feasible in both male and female patients, with very low rates of access site crossovers and complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":49261,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Invasive Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Routine coronary procedures via distal transradial access in male versus female patients: insights from the DISTRACTION registry.\",\"authors\":\"Marcos Danillo Oliveira, Adriano Caixeta\",\"doi\":\"10.25270/jic/25.00130\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have highlighted the benefits of distal over proximal transradial access, including lower rates of radial artery occlusion and faster hemostasis. Despite the increasing adoption of distal transradial access by interventionalists, there is a lack of data addressing gender-specific differences. This study aimed to assess those differences in routine coronary procedures via distal transradial access.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of a large, real-world sample of 6871 consecutive all-comers who underwent coronary procedures via distal transradial access using data from the DISTRACTION registry.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean patient ages were 63.8 ± 15.7 years, 63.5 ± 17.7, and 64.4 ± 11.1 years for total, male, and female groups, respectively; 65% of the patients were male. In the female group, there was statistically significant predominance of hypertension (82.2% vs 74%), diabetes (46.8% vs 37%), obesity (29.3% vs 22.2%), severe mitral valve disease (3.1% vs 1.1%), coronary angiography-only (48.7% vs 36%), and access-site crossovers (3.1% vs 1.5%). In the male group, there were more rates of former or current smoking (54.2% vs 40.8%), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (29.8% vs 19.7%), previous coronary artery bypass grafting (4.5% vs 1.9%), ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (24.2% vs 18.5%), PCI (66.1% vs 52.5%), left main PCI (2.6% vs 1.7%), redo right distal transradial access (15.3% vs 9.9%), and 7F sheath size (2.6% vs 0.9%). No major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events directly related to distal transradial access, no hand/thumb dysfunction or ischemia after any procedure, and no relevant access-site-related bleeding were recorded.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The adoption of distal transradial access by proficient operators as the default approach for routine coronary procedures appears to be safe and feasible in both male and female patients, with very low rates of access site crossovers and complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Invasive Cardiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Invasive Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25270/jic/25.00130\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Invasive Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25270/jic/25.00130","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:系统回顾和荟萃分析强调了桡动脉远端通道优于近端通道的优点,包括桡动脉闭塞率较低和止血速度较快。尽管越来越多的介入医生采用远端经桡骨通路,但缺乏针对性别差异的数据。本研究旨在评估经桡动脉远端通道的常规冠状动脉手术的差异。方法:作者对6871例通过远端桡动脉通路连续接受冠状动脉手术的患者进行了回顾性分析,这些患者使用了来自DISTRACTION注册表的数据。结果:男性、女性患者平均年龄分别为63.8±15.7岁、63.5±17.7岁、64.4±11.1岁;65%的患者为男性。在女性组中,高血压(82.2%比74%)、糖尿病(46.8%比37%)、肥胖(29.3%比22.2%)、严重二尖瓣疾病(3.1%比1.1%)、仅行冠状动脉造影(48.7%比36%)和通路部位交叉(3.1%比1.5%)的优势具有统计学意义。在男性组中,既往或当前吸烟(54.2%比40.8%)、既往经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)(29.8%比19.7%)、既往冠状动脉旁路移植术(4.5%比1.9%)、st段抬高型心肌梗死(24.2%比18.5%)、PCI(66.1%比52.5%)、左主干PCI(2.6%比1.7%)、右远端经桡动脉通路(15.3%比9.9%)和7F鞘尺寸(2.6%比0.9%)的发生率更高。无与远端经桡骨通路直接相关的重大脑血管和心脏不良事件,无任何手术后手/拇指功能障碍或缺血,无相关通路部位相关出血记录。结论:熟练的操作人员将远端经桡骨通路作为常规冠状动脉手术的默认入路,在男性和女性患者中都是安全可行的,并且通道交叉和并发症的发生率非常低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Routine coronary procedures via distal transradial access in male versus female patients: insights from the DISTRACTION registry.

Objectives: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have highlighted the benefits of distal over proximal transradial access, including lower rates of radial artery occlusion and faster hemostasis. Despite the increasing adoption of distal transradial access by interventionalists, there is a lack of data addressing gender-specific differences. This study aimed to assess those differences in routine coronary procedures via distal transradial access.

Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of a large, real-world sample of 6871 consecutive all-comers who underwent coronary procedures via distal transradial access using data from the DISTRACTION registry.

Results: The mean patient ages were 63.8 ± 15.7 years, 63.5 ± 17.7, and 64.4 ± 11.1 years for total, male, and female groups, respectively; 65% of the patients were male. In the female group, there was statistically significant predominance of hypertension (82.2% vs 74%), diabetes (46.8% vs 37%), obesity (29.3% vs 22.2%), severe mitral valve disease (3.1% vs 1.1%), coronary angiography-only (48.7% vs 36%), and access-site crossovers (3.1% vs 1.5%). In the male group, there were more rates of former or current smoking (54.2% vs 40.8%), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (29.8% vs 19.7%), previous coronary artery bypass grafting (4.5% vs 1.9%), ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (24.2% vs 18.5%), PCI (66.1% vs 52.5%), left main PCI (2.6% vs 1.7%), redo right distal transradial access (15.3% vs 9.9%), and 7F sheath size (2.6% vs 0.9%). No major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events directly related to distal transradial access, no hand/thumb dysfunction or ischemia after any procedure, and no relevant access-site-related bleeding were recorded.

Conclusions: The adoption of distal transradial access by proficient operators as the default approach for routine coronary procedures appears to be safe and feasible in both male and female patients, with very low rates of access site crossovers and complications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Invasive Cardiology
Journal of Invasive Cardiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
214
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Invasive Cardiology will consider for publication suitable articles on topics pertaining to the invasive treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease.
×
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