CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

血流储备分数

Abstract

Recommended Article

FFR-guided multivessel stenting reduces urgent revascularization compared with infarct-related artery only stenting in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Comparison of Accuracy of One-Use Methods for Calculating Fractional Flow Reserve by Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography to That Determined by the Pressure-Wire Method Diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for the detection of coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis The Utility of Contrast Medium Fractional Flow Reserve in Functional Assessment Of Coronary Disease in Daily Practice Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes Accuracy of Fractional Flow Reserve Derived From Coronary Angiography Impact of Percutaneous Revascularization on Exercise Hemodynamics in Patients With Stable Coronary Disease Post-stenting fractional flow reserve vs coronary angiography for optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention: TARGET-FFR trial

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.