BACKGROUND: Transradial coronary intervention is a safe and effective method of percutaneous revascularization. Furthermore, the indications for transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are expanding. However, there is limited data on the efficacy and the safety of the transradial approach for chronic total occlusion (CTO) PCI. METHODS: We examined 468 patients who underwent CTO PCI between January 2003 and December 2005, and compared the radial (318 patients) and the femoral (150 patients) approach. RESULTS: Baseline demographics, lesion location, and the vessel treated were similar in both groups. Angiographic success was 82% in radial versus 86% in femoral group, P = 0.28, similar in both groups. Total fluoroscopy time (24.49 +/- 13.18 vs. 24.07 +/- 14.12 min, P = 0.36), total procedure time (54.22 +/- 25.35 vs. 60.23 +/- 28.15 min, P = 0.23), and the use of total contrast volume (395.54 +/- 180.25 vs. 406.15 +/- 173.98 ml, P = 0.27) were similar in radial and femoral group, respectively. In hospital MACE [radial: 12 MI (3.8%) vs. femoral: 1 death (0.7%) and 5 MI (3.5%), P = 0.26] were similar in both groups. Access site vascular complications [radial: 11 (3.5%) vs. femoral: 17 (11.3%), P <or= 0.001] were significantly less in radial group. CONCLUSIONS: The radial approach in CTO PCI is as fast and successful as the femoral approach with comparable in hospital MACE. However, there are far less access site complications with radial approach. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Transradial coronary intervention is a safe and effective method of percutaneous revascularization. Furthermore, the indications for transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are expanding. However, there is limited data on the efficacy and the safety of the transradial approach for chronic total occlusion (CTO) PCI. METHODS: We examined 468 patients who underwent CTO PCI between January 2003 and December 2005, and compared the radial (318 patients) and the femoral (150 patients) approach. RESULTS: Baseline demographics, lesion location, and the vessel treated were similar in both groups. Angiographic success was 82% in radial versus 86% in femoral group, P = 0.28, similar in both groups. Total fluoroscopy time (24.49 +/- 13.18 vs. 24.07 +/- 14.12 min, P = 0.36), total procedure time (54.22 +/- 25.35 vs. 60.23 +/- 28.15 min, P = 0.23), and the use of total contrast volume (395.54 +/- 180.25 vs. 406.15 +/- 173.98 ml, P = 0.27) were similar in radial and femoral group, respectively. In hospital MACE [radial: 12 MI (3.8%) vs. femoral: 1 death (0.7%) and 5 MI (3.5%), P = 0.26] were similar in both groups. Access site vascular complications [radial: 11 (3.5%) vs. femoral: 17 (11.3%), P <or= 0.001] were significantly less in radial group. CONCLUSIONS: The radial approach in CTO PCI is as fast and successful as the femoral approach with comparable in hospital MACE. However, there are far less access site complications with radial approach. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Najia A Soomro; Muhammad N Khan; Khalid Naseeb; Mahesh K Batra; Haris Majeed; Usman Bhatti; Tariq Ashraf; Musa Karim Journal: Cureus Date: 2019-12-27
Authors: Thomas A Meijers; Adel Aminian; Koen Teeuwen; Marleen van Wely; Thomas Schmitz; Maurits T Dirksen; Rene J van der Schaaf; Juan F Iglesias; Pierfrancesco Agostoni; Joseph Dens; Paul Knaapen; Sudhir Rathore; Jan Paul Ottervanger; Jan-Henk E Dambrink; Vincent Roolvink; A T Marcel Gosselink; Renicus S Hermanides; Niels van Royen; Maarten A H van Leeuwen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 2.692