CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

推荐文献

Abstract

Recommended Article

The HACD4 haplotype as a risk factor for atherosclerosis in males Coronary Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in China: 10-Year Results From the China PEACE-Retrospective CathPCI Study CSC Expert Consensus on Principles of Clinical Management of Patients with Severe Emergent Cardiovascular Diseases during the COVID-19 Epidemic 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons How Low to Go With Glucose, Cholesterol, and Blood Pressure in Primary Prevention of CVD SCAI Expert Consensus Statement Update on Best Practices for Transradial Angiography and Intervention Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents LOX-1 in Atherosclerosis and Myocardial Ischemia: Biology, Genetics, and Modulation

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)