Kazunori Horie, Mitsuyoshi Takahara, Osamu Iida, Shun Kohsaka, Tatsuya Nakama, Toshiro Shinke, Norio Tada, Tetsuya Amano, Ken Kozuma
{"title":"比较经桡动脉入路和经股动脉入路血管内治疗主动脉髂闭塞性疾病的安全性和可行性:一项全国登记的倾向评分匹配分析","authors":"Kazunori Horie, Mitsuyoshi Takahara, Osamu Iida, Shun Kohsaka, Tatsuya Nakama, Toshiro Shinke, Norio Tada, Tetsuya Amano, Ken Kozuma","doi":"10.1177/15266028231187625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of performing endovascular therapy (EVT) for aortoiliac artery disease using transradial approach (TRA) as compared to transfemoral approach (TFA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed 9671 cases with symptomatic lower extremity artery disease due to aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) treated using EVT from a Japanese Nationwide EVT Registry between January and December 2021. We compared the baseline characteristics, procedural information, and 30-day outcomes of patients who received EVT only via TRA (n=863 [16.9%]) and those only via TFA (n=4255 [83.1%]) by using propensity score (PS) matching, after excluding those who required regular dialysis, those who underwent hybrid surgeries, and those who received EVT through 2 or more approach sites.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After matching, the final study population consisted of 862 matched patients with similar baseline characteristics in each group. Technical success rate was comparable between the 2 groups (99.3% vs. 99.3%, p>0.99). No significant differences were observed with respect to the composite of all-cause death within 48 hours after EVT and post-procedural complications within 30 days, including severe bleeding that required transfusion, revascularization procedures, urgent surgeries, cerebral infarction, and major limb amputation (0.2% vs. 0.7%, p=0.29). Transradial approach was associated with shorter operation time (85 vs. 90 minutes, p=0.016), but longer fluoroscopy time (26 vs. 20 minutes, p<0.001) and higher contrast agent volume (80 vs. 75 mL, p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After PS matching, TRA showed the comparable rates of successful EVT and 30-day complications in patients with AIOD compared to TFA. Transradial approach was found to be safe and be a viable alternative of TFA for the treatment of AIOD.Clinical ImpactThe efficacy of transradial approach (TRA) is established in percutaneous coronary intervention; however, its safety and feasibility are unclear in endovascular therapy (EVT). We analyzed 9,671 cases with symptomatic aortoiliac occlusive disease treated using EVT from a Nationwide Registry to compare the 30-day outcomes of those who received EVT only via TRA (n = 863 [16.9%]and those only via TFA (n=4,255 [83.1%]) by using propensity score matching. Technical success rate (99.3% vs. 99.3%, p > 0.99) and 30-day complications (0.2% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.29) were comparable between the two groups. EVT via TRA could be performed safely.</p>","PeriodicalId":50210,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"756-765"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Safety and Feasibility of Endovascular Therapy via Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches in Patients with Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the Nationwide Registry.\",\"authors\":\"Kazunori Horie, Mitsuyoshi Takahara, Osamu Iida, Shun Kohsaka, Tatsuya Nakama, Toshiro Shinke, Norio Tada, Tetsuya Amano, Ken Kozuma\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15266028231187625\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of performing endovascular therapy (EVT) for aortoiliac artery disease using transradial approach (TRA) as compared to transfemoral approach (TFA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed 9671 cases with symptomatic lower extremity artery disease due to aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) treated using EVT from a Japanese Nationwide EVT Registry between January and December 2021. We compared the baseline characteristics, procedural information, and 30-day outcomes of patients who received EVT only via TRA (n=863 [16.9%]) and those only via TFA (n=4255 [83.1%]) by using propensity score (PS) matching, after excluding those who required regular dialysis, those who underwent hybrid surgeries, and those who received EVT through 2 or more approach sites.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After matching, the final study population consisted of 862 matched patients with similar baseline characteristics in each group. Technical success rate was comparable between the 2 groups (99.3% vs. 99.3%, p>0.99). No significant differences were observed with respect to the composite of all-cause death within 48 hours after EVT and post-procedural complications within 30 days, including severe bleeding that required transfusion, revascularization procedures, urgent surgeries, cerebral infarction, and major limb amputation (0.2% vs. 0.7%, p=0.29). Transradial approach was associated with shorter operation time (85 vs. 90 minutes, p=0.016), but longer fluoroscopy time (26 vs. 20 minutes, p<0.001) and higher contrast agent volume (80 vs. 75 mL, p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After PS matching, TRA showed the comparable rates of successful EVT and 30-day complications in patients with AIOD compared to TFA. Transradial approach was found to be safe and be a viable alternative of TFA for the treatment of AIOD.Clinical ImpactThe efficacy of transradial approach (TRA) is established in percutaneous coronary intervention; however, its safety and feasibility are unclear in endovascular therapy (EVT). We analyzed 9,671 cases with symptomatic aortoiliac occlusive disease treated using EVT from a Nationwide Registry to compare the 30-day outcomes of those who received EVT only via TRA (n = 863 [16.9%]and those only via TFA (n=4,255 [83.1%]) by using propensity score matching. Technical success rate (99.3% vs. 99.3%, p > 0.99) and 30-day complications (0.2% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.29) were comparable between the two groups. EVT via TRA could be performed safely.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Endovascular Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"756-765\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Endovascular Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028231187625\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028231187625","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:我们的目的是评估经桡动脉入路(TRA)与经股动脉入路(TFA)对主动脉髂动脉疾病进行血管内治疗(EVT)的可行性。方法:我们分析了9671例由主动脉髂闭塞性疾病(AIOD)引起的症状性下肢动脉疾病,这些患者使用EVT治疗,这些患者来自日本全国EVT登记处,时间为2021年1月至12月。在排除了需要定期透析的患者、接受混合手术的患者和通过2个或更多途径接受EVT的患者后,我们使用倾向评分(PS)匹配比较了仅通过TRA接受EVT的患者(n=863[16.9%])和仅通过TFA接受EVT的患者(n=4255[83.1%])的基线特征、手术信息和30天结局。结果:匹配后,最终的研究人群包括862名匹配的患者,每组基线特征相似。两组间技术成功率具有可比性(99.3% vs. 99.3%, p < 0.99)。EVT后48小时内的全因死亡和30天内的手术后并发症(包括需要输血的大出血、血运重建手术、紧急手术、脑梗死和主要肢体截肢)的综合发生率无显著差异(0.2% vs. 0.7%, p=0.29)。经桡骨入路手术时间较短(85 vs. 90分钟,p=0.016),但透视时间较长(26 vs. 20分钟,p)。结论:经PS匹配后,TRA显示AIOD患者EVT成功率和30天并发症发生率与TFA相当。经桡骨入路是安全的,是治疗AIOD的可行的TFA替代方法。临床影响经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中经桡动脉入路(TRA)的疗效得到证实;但其在血管内治疗(EVT)中的安全性和可行性尚不清楚。我们分析了来自全国登记的9671例使用EVT治疗的症状性主动脉髂闭塞性疾病患者,通过倾向评分匹配比较仅通过TRA接受EVT的患者(n= 863[16.9%])和仅通过TFA接受EVT的患者(n= 4255[83.1%])的30天结局。技术成功率(99.3% vs. 99.3%, p = 0.99)和30天并发症(0.2% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.29)在两组之间具有可比性。经TRA行EVT是安全的。
Comparing the Safety and Feasibility of Endovascular Therapy via Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches in Patients with Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the Nationwide Registry.
Purpose: Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of performing endovascular therapy (EVT) for aortoiliac artery disease using transradial approach (TRA) as compared to transfemoral approach (TFA).
Methods: We analyzed 9671 cases with symptomatic lower extremity artery disease due to aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) treated using EVT from a Japanese Nationwide EVT Registry between January and December 2021. We compared the baseline characteristics, procedural information, and 30-day outcomes of patients who received EVT only via TRA (n=863 [16.9%]) and those only via TFA (n=4255 [83.1%]) by using propensity score (PS) matching, after excluding those who required regular dialysis, those who underwent hybrid surgeries, and those who received EVT through 2 or more approach sites.
Results: After matching, the final study population consisted of 862 matched patients with similar baseline characteristics in each group. Technical success rate was comparable between the 2 groups (99.3% vs. 99.3%, p>0.99). No significant differences were observed with respect to the composite of all-cause death within 48 hours after EVT and post-procedural complications within 30 days, including severe bleeding that required transfusion, revascularization procedures, urgent surgeries, cerebral infarction, and major limb amputation (0.2% vs. 0.7%, p=0.29). Transradial approach was associated with shorter operation time (85 vs. 90 minutes, p=0.016), but longer fluoroscopy time (26 vs. 20 minutes, p<0.001) and higher contrast agent volume (80 vs. 75 mL, p<0.001).
Conclusion: After PS matching, TRA showed the comparable rates of successful EVT and 30-day complications in patients with AIOD compared to TFA. Transradial approach was found to be safe and be a viable alternative of TFA for the treatment of AIOD.Clinical ImpactThe efficacy of transradial approach (TRA) is established in percutaneous coronary intervention; however, its safety and feasibility are unclear in endovascular therapy (EVT). We analyzed 9,671 cases with symptomatic aortoiliac occlusive disease treated using EVT from a Nationwide Registry to compare the 30-day outcomes of those who received EVT only via TRA (n = 863 [16.9%]and those only via TFA (n=4,255 [83.1%]) by using propensity score matching. Technical success rate (99.3% vs. 99.3%, p > 0.99) and 30-day complications (0.2% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.29) were comparable between the two groups. EVT via TRA could be performed safely.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Endovascular Therapy (formerly the Journal of Endovascular Surgery) was established in 1994 as a forum for all physicians, scientists, and allied healthcare professionals who are engaged or interested in peripheral endovascular techniques and technology. An official publication of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists (ISEVS), the Journal of Endovascular Therapy publishes peer-reviewed articles of interest to clinicians and researchers in the field of peripheral endovascular interventions.