Literature DB >> 26104978

Transfemoral approach with systematic use of FemoSeal™ closure device compared to transradial approach in primary angioplasty.

Alessandro Alonzo1, Stefano Rigattieri2, Francesca Giovannelli1, Cristian Di Russo2, Alessandro Sciahbasi2, Andrea Berni1, Massimo Volpe3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) bleedings in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) performed through transradial approach (TRA) or transfemoral approach (TFA) with systematic closure by FemoSeal™.
BACKGROUND: Although the risk of bleeding can be reduced using vascular closure devices (VCD), there are few data comparing TRA and TFA with VCD, particularly in the setting of pPCI.
METHODS: we included in this retrospective registry 777 patients who underwent pPCI at two centers from years 2010 to 2013. Exclusion criteria were implantation of intra-aortic balloon pump and achievement of femoral hemostasis by other means than FemoSeal™. We performed propensity-score matching and multivariate analysis to adjust for clinical and procedural confounders.
RESULTS: We enrolled 511 patients in TRA group and 266 in TFA group. Both in the general population and in the propensity-matched population, the incidence of MACCE was comparable in TRA vs. TFA patients (3.5 vs. 3.4% and 4.4 vs. 2.6%, respectively; P = ns). On the contrary, we observed a higher incidence of TIMI bleedings in TFA vs. TRA patients (5.6 vs. 2.2% in the general population and 6.6 vs. 1.3% in the propensity-matched population; P < 0.05); this difference was mainly driven by TIMI major bleedings. TFA was an independent predictor of bleeding at multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: In pPCI the rate of TIMI major bleedings was higher in TFA with closure by FemoSeal™ as compared to TRA, whereas the rates of minor bleedings and of MACCE were similar.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acute myocardial infarction; bleeding; vascular access

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26104978     DOI: 10.1002/ccd.26076

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1522-1946            Impact factor:   2.692


  4 in total

Review 1.  Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Ahmed A Kolkailah; Rabah S Alreshq; Ahmed M Muhammed; Mohamed E Zahran; Marwah Anas El-Wegoud; Ashraf F Nabhan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-04-18

2.  Femoral access site closure without prior femoral angiography : A retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Christoph Brenner; Julian Margreitter; Alexandra Gratl; Josef Klocker; Rudolf Kirchmair; Peter Marschang; Guy Friedrich; Bernhard Metzler; Nicolas Moes
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 1.704

3.  Endovascular management of femoral access-site and access-related vascular complications following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).

Authors:  Nadjib Schahab; Refik Kavsur; Thorsten Mahn; Christian Schaefer; Alexander Kania; Rolf Fimmers; Georg Nickenig; Sebastian Zimmer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Comparison of acute kidney injury with radial vs. femoral access for patients undergoing coronary catheterization: An updated meta-analysis of 46,816 patients.

Authors:  Chang Wang; Weiwei Chen; Ming Yu; Ping Yang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 2.447

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.