OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term and long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between transradial intervention (TRI) and transfemoral intervention (TFI) in elderly patients. METHODS: From January 2005 to December 2010, 488 consecutive elderly patients ( ≥ 80 years old) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into TRI group (n = 235, PCIs were performed trans-radial approach) and TFI group (n = 253, PCIs were performed trans-femoral approach). Efficacy and safety data were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no differences in success rate of stenting, procedure time, contrast amount, rates of contrast-induced nephropathy, major adverse cardiovascular events during hospitalization, at one year follow up and at two years follow up. Lower vascular complications were associated with TRI approach[ 17.9% (42/253) vs. 26.9% (68/253) , P < 0.05], especially in TIMI major bleeding ratio [1.3% (3/235) vs. 4.7% (12/253) , P < 0.05], TIMI minor bleeding [5.1% (12/235) vs. 15.8% (40/253) , P < 0.01], and time lying in bed [3.6 (2.8-4.2)h vs. 24.4 (24.0-25.1)h, P < 0.01] and hospitalization [3.0 (3.0-4.0)d vs. 5.0 (5.0-6.0)d, P < 0.01], and higher rates of crossover approach were associated with TRI [11.5% (27/235) vs. 2.0(5/253) , P < 0.01]. CONCLUSION: TRI is as feasible, safe and effective as TFI in elderly patients during short-term and long-term follow up, and TRI is associated with higher rates of crossover approach.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term and long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between transradial intervention (TRI) and transfemoral intervention (TFI) in elderly patients. METHODS: From January 2005 to December 2010, 488 consecutive elderly patients ( ≥ 80 years old) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into TRI group (n = 235, PCIs were performed trans-radial approach) and TFI group (n = 253, PCIs were performed trans-femoral approach). Efficacy and safety data were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no differences in success rate of stenting, procedure time, contrast amount, rates of contrast-induced nephropathy, major adverse cardiovascular events during hospitalization, at one year follow up and at two years follow up. Lower vascular complications were associated with TRI approach[ 17.9% (42/253) vs. 26.9% (68/253) , P < 0.05], especially in TIMI major bleeding ratio [1.3% (3/235) vs. 4.7% (12/253) , P < 0.05], TIMI minor bleeding [5.1% (12/235) vs. 15.8% (40/253) , P < 0.01], and time lying in bed [3.6 (2.8-4.2)h vs. 24.4 (24.0-25.1)h, P < 0.01] and hospitalization [3.0 (3.0-4.0)d vs. 5.0 (5.0-6.0)d, P < 0.01], and higher rates of crossover approach were associated with TRI [11.5% (27/235) vs. 2.0(5/253) , P < 0.01]. CONCLUSION: TRI is as feasible, safe and effective as TFI in elderly patients during short-term and long-term follow up, and TRI is associated with higher rates of crossover approach.