Connie N Hess1, Mitchell W Krucoff2, Shubin Sheng2, Kevin J Anstrom2, W Britt Barham2, Ian C Gilchrist3, Robert A Harrington4, Alice K Jacobs5, Roxana Mehran6, John C Messenger7, Daniel B Mark2, Sunil V Rao2. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC. Electronic address: connie.hess@duke.edu. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC. 3. Heart & Vascular Institute, Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA. 4. Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 5. Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 6. Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the SAFE-PCI for Women trial, patient preference for radial access for future procedures was greater than for femoral access. We sought to assess whether radial or femoral access impacts formal measures of quality-of-life (QOL) among women undergoing cardiac catheterization. METHODS: We assessed QOL using European quality of life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores among 304 women randomized to radial or femoral arteriotomy in the SAFE-PCI for Women trial at sites with QOL substudy approval. Patient surveys were administered at baseline, hospital discharge, and 30 days (for percutaneous coronary intervention patients). RESULTS: Women randomized to both treatments had similar EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS scores at baseline, hospital discharge, and 30-day follow-up. After adjustment for baseline scores, there was no effect of assigned treatment on EQ-5D (discharge 0.004; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 30 days -0.03; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02) or EQ-VAS (discharge -1.31; 95% CI -4.74 to 2.12; 30 days -2.10; 95% CI -8.92 to 4.71) scores. At discharge, 60.5% versus 63.5% (P = .60) of patients in radial and femoral groups were free from access site pain; at 30 days, rates were 85.7% versus 77.6% (P = .30), respectively. Patient preference for the same access strategy for repeat procedures was greater in the radial versus femoral group (77.2% vs 26.8%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Using established QOL instruments, we did not measure any difference in QOL or functional status according to access site strategy in women undergoing cardiac catheterization, yet patient preference for the radial approach was significantly greater. Other factors influencing patient choice for radial access should be investigated. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In the SAFE-PCI for Women trial, patient preference for radial access for future procedures was greater than for femoral access. We sought to assess whether radial or femoral access impacts formal measures of quality-of-life (QOL) among women undergoing cardiac catheterization. METHODS: We assessed QOL using European quality of life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores among 304 women randomized to radial or femoral arteriotomy in the SAFE-PCI for Women trial at sites with QOL substudy approval. Patient surveys were administered at baseline, hospital discharge, and 30 days (for percutaneous coronary intervention patients). RESULTS:Women randomized to both treatments had similar EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS scores at baseline, hospital discharge, and 30-day follow-up. After adjustment for baseline scores, there was no effect of assigned treatment on EQ-5D (discharge 0.004; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 30 days -0.03; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02) or EQ-VAS (discharge -1.31; 95% CI -4.74 to 2.12; 30 days -2.10; 95% CI -8.92 to 4.71) scores. At discharge, 60.5% versus 63.5% (P = .60) of patients in radial and femoral groups were free from access site pain; at 30 days, rates were 85.7% versus 77.6% (P = .30), respectively. Patient preference for the same access strategy for repeat procedures was greater in the radial versus femoral group (77.2% vs 26.8%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Using established QOL instruments, we did not measure any difference in QOL or functional status according to access site strategy in women undergoing cardiac catheterization, yet patient preference for the radial approach was significantly greater. Other factors influencing patient choice for radial access should be investigated. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Alexander Holm; Hans Lindgren; Mats Bläckberg; Marika Augutis; Peter Jakobsson; Mattias Tell; Jonas Wallinder; Karl-Johan Lundström; Johan Styrke Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2021-03-12
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
Authors: Youlin Koh; Julia Stehli; Catherine Martin; Angela Brennan; Diem T Dinh; Jeffrey Lefkovits; Sarah Zaman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jan Roczniak; Wojciech Koziołek; Marcin Piechocki; Tomasz Tokarek; Andrzej Surdacki; Stanisław Bartuś; Michał Chyrchel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 3.390