CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Clinical Practice Guideline for Screening and Management of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents Clinical Implications of Periprocedural Myocardial Injury in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion: Role of Antegrade and Retrograde Crossing Techniques A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 Catheterization Laboratory Considerations During the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic: From the ACC’s Interventional Council and SCAI Use of Risk Assessment Tools to Guide Decision-Making in the Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease A Special Report From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiolog New AHA/ACC/HRS Guidance on Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention Quantitative Assessment of Coronary Microvascular Function: Dynamic Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography, Positron Emission Tomography, Ultrasound, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Clinical TrialMay 18, 2021.

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. Article Link

Randomized Comparison Between Radial and Femoral Large-Bore Access for Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

TA Meijers , A Aminian , M van Wely et al. Keywords: transradial PCI vs. transfemoral PCI; large-bore guiding catheters; access site–related bleeding or vascular complications

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to investigate whether transradial (TR) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to transfemoral (TF) PCI in complex coronary lesions with large-bore guiding catheters with respect to clinically relevant access siterelated bleeding or vascular complications.

 

BACKGROUND - The femoral artery is currently the most applied access site for PCI of complex coronary lesions, especially when large-bore guiding catheters are required. With downsizing of TR equipment, TR PCI may be increasingly applied in these patients and might be a safer alternative compared with the TF approach.

 

METHODS - An international prospective multicenter trial was conducted, randomizing 388 patients with planned PCI for complex coronary lesions, including chronic total occlusion, left main, heavy calcification, or complex bifurcation, to either 7-F TR access (TRA) or 7-F TF access (TFA). The primary endpoint was defined as access siterelated clinically significant bleeding or vascular complications requiring intervention at discharge. The secondary endpoint was procedural success.

 

RESULTS - The primary endpoint event rate was 3.6% for TRA and 19.1% for TFA (p < 0.001). The crossover rate from radial to femoral access was 3.6% and from femoral to radial access was 2.6% (p = 0.558). The procedural success rate was 89.2% for TFA and 86.0% for TRA (p = 0.285). There was no difference between TFA and TRA with regard to procedural duration, contrast volume, or radiation dose.

 

CONCLUSIONS - In patients undergoing PCI of complex coronary lesions with large-bore access, radial compared with femoral access is associated with a significant reduction in clinically relevant access-site bleeding or vascular complications, without affecting procedural success. (Complex Large-Bore Radial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Trial [Color]; NCT03846752)