Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2019
Single-Center Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Transradial, Transbrachial, and Transfemoral Approach for Mesenteric Arterial Procedures.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van Dijk Louisa J D, van Noord Desirée, van Mierlo Minke, Bijdevaate Diederik C, Bruno Marco J, Moelker Adriaan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess feasibility and safety of transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) and transbrachial access (TBA) for mesenteric arterial endovascular procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed including all consecutive patients who underwent a mesenteric arterial procedure in a tertiary referral center between May 2012 and February 2018. Exclusion criteria were absence of data and lost to follow-up within 24 hours after the procedure. During the study period, 103 patients underwent 148 mesenteric arterial procedures (TBA, n = 52; TFA, n = 39; TRA, n = 57). Mean patient age was 64.3 years ± 13.3, and 91 patients (62%) were women. Primary outcomes were vascular access specified technical success rate and access site complication rate, as reported in hospital records.
RESULTS: Technical success rate specified for the vascular access technique did not differ between the 3 approaches (TBA 96%, TFA 87%, TRA 91%; TRA vs TBA, P = .295; TBA vs TFA, P = .112; TRA vs TFA, P = .524), and overall access site complication rate was not different between the 3 approaches (TBA 42%, TFA 23%, TRA 35%; TRA vs TBA, P = .439; TBA vs TFA, P = .055; TRA vs TFA, P = .208). However, more major access site complications were reported for TBA than for TRA or TFA (TBA 17%, TFA 3%, TRA 2%; TRA vs TBA, P = .005; TBA vs TFA, P = .026; TRA vs TFA, P = .785).
CONCLUSIONS: TRA is a safe and feasible approach for mesenteric arterial procedures comparable to TFA, but with a significantly lower major access site complication rate than TBA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed including all consecutive patients who underwent a mesenteric arterial procedure in a tertiary referral center between May 2012 and February 2018. Exclusion criteria were absence of data and lost to follow-up within 24 hours after the procedure. During the study period, 103 patients underwent 148 mesenteric arterial procedures (TBA, n = 52; TFA, n = 39; TRA, n = 57). Mean patient age was 64.3 years ± 13.3, and 91 patients (62%) were women. Primary outcomes were vascular access specified technical success rate and access site complication rate, as reported in hospital records.
RESULTS: Technical success rate specified for the vascular access technique did not differ between the 3 approaches (TBA 96%, TFA 87%, TRA 91%; TRA vs TBA, P = .295; TBA vs TFA, P = .112; TRA vs TFA, P = .524), and overall access site complication rate was not different between the 3 approaches (TBA 42%, TFA 23%, TRA 35%; TRA vs TBA, P = .439; TBA vs TFA, P = .055; TRA vs TFA, P = .208). However, more major access site complications were reported for TBA than for TRA or TFA (TBA 17%, TFA 3%, TRA 2%; TRA vs TBA, P = .005; TBA vs TFA, P = .026; TRA vs TFA, P = .785).
CONCLUSIONS: TRA is a safe and feasible approach for mesenteric arterial procedures comparable to TFA, but with a significantly lower major access site complication rate than TBA.