BACKGROUND: Access site complications are reduced using radial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is concern that technical difficulties using this approach can delay achievement of reperfusion during primary or rescue PCI for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) especially in elderly patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 155 patients (pts) > or = 70 years who underwent primary or rescue PCI for AMI; radial (Group1; 87 pts) or femoral (Group2; 68 pts). Baseline characteristics, the amount of IIB/IIIA inhibitor, contrast and heparin used, and TIMI flow pre and post PCI were similar in both groups (P>0.05). Time from arrival in the catheterization laboratory to the first balloon inflation (Group 1: 44.0+/-21.5 versus Group 2 38.8+/-18.7 min) was also similar, but was significantly longer (61.2+/-11.1 min) compared to both groups in patients with a failed radial approach (7 pts, 8%). Angiographic success, and in-hospital MACE were also similar in the two groups, but vascular access site complications were significantly higher in Group 2 (0 versus 2.9%, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of the radial approach in elderly patients undergoing primary and rescue PCI, when successful, is safe and effective as the femoral approach, and leads to fewer vascular complications.
BACKGROUND: Access site complications are reduced using radial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is concern that technical difficulties using this approach can delay achievement of reperfusion during primary or rescue PCI for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) especially in elderly patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 155 patients (pts) > or = 70 years who underwent primary or rescue PCI for AMI; radial (Group1; 87 pts) or femoral (Group2; 68 pts). Baseline characteristics, the amount of IIB/IIIA inhibitor, contrast and heparin used, and TIMI flow pre and post PCI were similar in both groups (P>0.05). Time from arrival in the catheterization laboratory to the first balloon inflation (Group 1: 44.0+/-21.5 versus Group 2 38.8+/-18.7 min) was also similar, but was significantly longer (61.2+/-11.1 min) compared to both groups in patients with a failed radial approach (7 pts, 8%). Angiographic success, and in-hospital MACE were also similar in the two groups, but vascular access site complications were significantly higher in Group 2 (0 versus 2.9%, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of the radial approach in elderly patients undergoing primary and rescue PCI, when successful, is safe and effective as the femoral approach, and leads to fewer vascular complications.
Authors: Elena Franchi; Paolo Marino; Giuseppe G Biondi-Zoccai; Giuseppe De Luca; Corrado Vassanelli; Pierfrancesco Agostoni Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Abdullah Tuncez; Zeynettin Kaya; Dursun Aras; Abdulkadir Yıldız; Enes Elvin Gül; Mehmet Tekinalp; Mehmet Fatih Karakaş; Halil Lütfü Kısacık Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 3.738