INTRODUCTION: Transfemoral approach (TFA) may be preferred access site in order to facilitate complex percutaneous procedures such as rotational atherectomy (RA). Notwithstanding, there is a growing evidence that transradial approach (TRA) is associated with lower access site complication rates and even lower mortality. The aim was to assess in-hospital and 1-year outcomes in patients undergoing RA using TRA, in comparison to TFA. METHODS: A single center observational study included all consecutive patients, who underwent RA from 2010 to 2015. Primary endpoints were procedural success, in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints were 1-year all-cause mortality and MACE. RESULTS: The study included 177 patients, 69% in TRA group and 31% in TFA group. Except for male sex and logistic Euroscore II there were no differences in common risk factors. There was no difference in procedural success (95% vs 87%, P = 0.07) with even a trend in favor of TRA. Performing RA via TRA lower amount of contrast volume (P = 0.009) was used and hospital stay after the procedure was shorter (P = 0.004). Periprocedural complication rates were similar, however patients with TFA had significantly higher rate of major access site bleedings (13% vs 1%, P = 0.001), with no differences in mortality and other adverse events both in-hospital and during 1-year observation. CONCLUSIONS: Even though RA is a demanding technique, when performed via TRA allows to maintain the same procedural success and long-term results in comparison to TFA, reduces in-hospital major access site bleedings, lowers the amount of contrast media and shortens hospital stay.
INTRODUCTION: Transfemoral approach (TFA) may be preferred access site in order to facilitate complex percutaneous procedures such as rotational atherectomy (RA). Notwithstanding, there is a growing evidence that transradial approach (TRA) is associated with lower access site complication rates and even lower mortality. The aim was to assess in-hospital and 1-year outcomes in patients undergoing RA using TRA, in comparison to TFA. METHODS: A single center observational study included all consecutive patients, who underwent RA from 2010 to 2015. Primary endpoints were procedural success, in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints were 1-year all-cause mortality and MACE. RESULTS: The study included 177 patients, 69% in TRA group and 31% in TFA group. Except for male sex and logistic Euroscore II there were no differences in common risk factors. There was no difference in procedural success (95% vs 87%, P = 0.07) with even a trend in favor of TRA. Performing RA via TRA lower amount of contrast volume (P = 0.009) was used and hospital stay after the procedure was shorter (P = 0.004). Periprocedural complication rates were similar, however patients with TFA had significantly higher rate of major access site bleedings (13% vs 1%, P = 0.001), with no differences in mortality and other adverse events both in-hospital and during 1-year observation. CONCLUSIONS: Even though RA is a demanding technique, when performed via TRA allows to maintain the same procedural success and long-term results in comparison to TFA, reduces in-hospital major access site bleedings, lowers the amount of contrast media and shortens hospital stay.
Authors: Rafał Januszek; Zbigniew Siudak; Krzysztof Reczuch; Sławomir Dobrzycki; Maciej Lesiak; Jacek Legutko; Paweł Kleczyński; Łukasz Rzeszutko; Dariusz Dudek; Stanisław Bartuś Journal: Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 1.426