Karim Ratib1, Mamas A Mamas2, Simon G Anderson3, Gurbir Bhatia4, Helen Routledge5, Mark De Belder6, Peter F Ludman7, Douglas Fraser8, James Nolan9. 1. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom. 2. Manchester Heart Centre, United Kingdom; University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 3. University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 4. Heart of England National Health Service Trust, west Midlands, United Kingdom. 5. Worcestershire Royal Hospital, Worcestershire, United Kingdom. 6. James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom. 7. University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 8. Manchester Heart Centre, United Kingdom. 9. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nolanjim@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the relationships among access site practice, clinical presentation, and procedural outcomes in a large patient population. BACKGROUND: Transradial access (TRA) has been associated with improved patient outcomes in selected populations in randomized trials. It is unclear whether these outcomes are achievable in clinical practice. METHODS: Using the BCIS (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society) database, we investigated outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention procedures undertaken between 2007 and 2012 according to access site practice. Patients were categorized as stable, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) and ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (STEACS). The impact of access site on 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiac events, bleeding, and arterial access site complications was studied. RESULTS: Data from 210,260 TRA and 229,687 transfemoral access procedures were analyzed. Following multivariate analysis, TRA was independently associated with a reduction in bleeding in all presenting syndromes (stable odds ratio [OR]: 0.24, p < 0.001; NSTEACS OR: 0.35, p < 0.001; STEACS OR: 0.47, p < 0.001) as well as access site complications (stable OR: 0.21, p < 0.001; NSTEACS OR: 0.19; STEACS OR: 0.16, p < 0.001). TRA was associated with reduced major adverse cardiac events only in patients with unstable syndromes (stable OR: 1.08, p = 0.25; NSTEACS OR: 0.72, p < 0.001; STEACS OR: 0.70, p < 0.001). TRA was associated with improved outcomes compared with a transfemoral access (TFA) with a vascular closure device in a propensity matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In this large study, TRA is associated with reduced percutaneous coronary intervention-related complications in all patient groups and may reduce major adverse cardiac events and mortality in ACS patients. TRA is superior to transfemoral access with closure devices. Use of TRA may lead to important patient benefits in routine practice. TRA should be considered the preferred access site for percutaneous coronary intervention.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the relationships among access site practice, clinical presentation, and procedural outcomes in a large patient population. BACKGROUND: Transradial access (TRA) has been associated with improved patient outcomes in selected populations in randomized trials. It is unclear whether these outcomes are achievable in clinical practice. METHODS: Using the BCIS (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society) database, we investigated outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention procedures undertaken between 2007 and 2012 according to access site practice. Patients were categorized as stable, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) and ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (STEACS). The impact of access site on 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiac events, bleeding, and arterial access site complications was studied. RESULTS: Data from 210,260 TRA and 229,687 transfemoral access procedures were analyzed. Following multivariate analysis, TRA was independently associated with a reduction in bleeding in all presenting syndromes (stable odds ratio [OR]: 0.24, p < 0.001; NSTEACS OR: 0.35, p < 0.001; STEACS OR: 0.47, p < 0.001) as well as access site complications (stable OR: 0.21, p < 0.001; NSTEACS OR: 0.19; STEACS OR: 0.16, p < 0.001). TRA was associated with reduced major adverse cardiac events only in patients with unstable syndromes (stable OR: 1.08, p = 0.25; NSTEACS OR: 0.72, p < 0.001; STEACS OR: 0.70, p < 0.001). TRA was associated with improved outcomes compared with a transfemoral access (TFA) with a vascular closure device in a propensity matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In this large study, TRA is associated with reduced percutaneous coronary intervention-related complications in all patient groups and may reduce major adverse cardiac events and mortality in ACS patients. TRA is superior to transfemoral access with closure devices. Use of TRA may lead to important patient benefits in routine practice. TRA should be considered the preferred access site for percutaneous coronary intervention.
Authors: Christiana Schernthaner; Matthias Hammerer; Stefan Harb; Matthias Heigert; Kurt Hoellinger; Elisabeth Lassnig; Edwin Maurer; Jochen Schuler; Peter Siostrzonek; Hanno Ulmer; Andreas Winter; Johann Altenberger Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Matthias Hasun; Jakob Dörler; Hannes F Alber; Axel Bauer; Rudolf Berger; Günter Christ; Matthias Frick; Uta C Hoppe; Kurt Huber; Gudrun Lamm; Elisabeth Laßnig; Dirk von Lewinski; Anna Rab; Franz X Roithinger; Herwig Schuchlenz; Peter Siostrzonek; Johann Sipötz; Thomas Stefenelli; Clemens Steinwender; Michael Edlinger; Franz Weidinger Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2021-06
Authors: Michael Behnes; Melike Ünsal; Ursula Hoffmann; Christian Fastner; Ibrahim El-Battrawy; Siegfried Lang; Kambis Mashayekhi; Ralf Lehmann; Martin Borggrefe; Ibrahim Akin Journal: Clin Med Insights Cardiol Date: 2015-11-03