Muhammad Rashid1, Claire Lawson2, Jessica Potts2, Evangelos Kontopantelis3, Chun Shing Kwok4, Olivier Francois Bertrand5, Ahmad Shoaib4, Peter Ludman6, Tim Kinnaird7, Mark de Belder8, James Nolan4, Mamas A Mamas4. 1. Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Centre for Prognosis Research, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom. Electronic address: doctorrashid7@gmail.com. 2. Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Centre for Prognosis Research, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom. 3. Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 4. Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Centre for Prognosis Research, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom; Academic Department of Cardiology, Royal Stoke Hospital, University Hospital North Midlands, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom. 5. Quebec Heart-Lung Institute, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. 6. Department of Cardiology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 7. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom. 8. The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine the relationships between left radial access (LRA) or right radial access (RRA) and clinical outcomes using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) database. BACKGROUND: LRA has been shown to offer procedural advantages over RRA in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) although few data exist from a national perspective around its use and association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: The authors investigated the relationship between use of LRA or RRA and clinical outcomes of in-hospital or 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), in-hospital stroke, and major bleeding complications in patients undergoing PCI between 2007 and 2014. RESULTS: Of 342,806 cases identified, 328,495 (96%) were RRA and 14,311 (4%) were LRA. Use of LRA increased from 3.2% to 4.6% from 2007 to 2014. In patients undergoing a repeat PCI procedure, the use of RRA dropped to 72% at the second procedure and was even lower in females (65%) and patients >75 years of age (70%). Use of LRA (compared with RRA) was not associated with significant differences in in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.57; p = 0.20), 30-day mortality (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.74; p = 0.16), MACE (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.32; p = 0.56), or major bleeding (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.77; p = 0.24). In propensity match analysis, LRA was associated with a significant decrease in in-hospital stroke (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.82; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In this large PCI database, use of LRA is limited compared with RRA but conveys no increased risk of adverse outcomes, but may be associated with a reduction in PCI-related stroke complications.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine the relationships between left radial access (LRA) or right radial access (RRA) and clinical outcomes using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) database. BACKGROUND: LRA has been shown to offer procedural advantages over RRA in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) although few data exist from a national perspective around its use and association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: The authors investigated the relationship between use of LRA or RRA and clinical outcomes of in-hospital or 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), in-hospital stroke, and major bleeding complications in patients undergoing PCI between 2007 and 2014. RESULTS: Of 342,806 cases identified, 328,495 (96%) were RRA and 14,311 (4%) were LRA. Use of LRA increased from 3.2% to 4.6% from 2007 to 2014. In patients undergoing a repeat PCI procedure, the use of RRA dropped to 72% at the second procedure and was even lower in females (65%) and patients >75 years of age (70%). Use of LRA (compared with RRA) was not associated with significant differences in in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.57; p = 0.20), 30-day mortality (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.74; p = 0.16), MACE (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.32; p = 0.56), or major bleeding (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.77; p = 0.24). In propensity match analysis, LRA was associated with a significant decrease in in-hospital stroke (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.82; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In this large PCI database, use of LRA is limited compared with RRA but conveys no increased risk of adverse outcomes, but may be associated with a reduction in PCI-related stroke complications.