CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest without ST-Segment Elevation Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents 2-Year Clinical Outcomes: From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study 2017 ACC/AHA Blood Pressure Treatment Guideline Recommendations and Cardiovascular Risk Effectiveness-Based Guidelines for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Women—2011 Update: A Guideline From the American Heart Association Qualitative and Mixed Methods Provide Unique Contributions to Outcomes Research

Clinical TrialMay 2018 [Epub ahead]

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Incidence, Determinants, and Outcomes of Left and Right Radial Access Use in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United Kingdom-A National Perspective Using the BCIS Dataset

M Rashid, C Lawson, J Potts et al. Keywords: 30-day mortality; in-hospital mortality; in-hospital; strokeleft radial accessMACEmajor adverse cardiovascular events; major bleeding; right radial access; successive PCI

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The authors sought to determine the relationships between left radial access (LRA) or right radial access (RRA) and clinical outcomes using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) database.


BACKGROUND - LRA has been shown to offer procedural advantages over RRA in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) although few data exist from a national perspective around its use and association with clinical outcomes.

METHODS - The authors investigated the relationship between use of LRA or RRA and clinical outcomes of in-hospital or 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, in-hospital stroke, and major bleeding complications in patients undergoing PCI between 2007 and 2014.

RESULTS - Of 342,806 cases identified, 328,495 (96%) were RRA and 14,311 (4%) were LRA. Use of LRA increased from 3.2% to 4.6% from 2007 to 2014. In patients undergoing a repeat PCI procedure, the use of RRA dropped to 72% at the second procedure and was even lower in females (65%) and patients >75 years of age (70%). Use of LRA (compared with RRA) was not associated with significant differences in in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.57; p = 0.20), 30-day mortality (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.74; p = 0.16), MACE (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.32; p = 0.56), or major bleeding (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.77; p = 0.24). In propensity match analysis, LRA was associated with a significant decrease in in-hospital stroke (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.82; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS - In this large PCI database, use of LRA is limited compared with RRA but conveys no increased risk of adverse outcomes, but may be associated with a reduction in PCI-related stroke complications.