Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2020
Radial vs. Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Artery Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Malik Aaqib H, Yandrapalli Srikanth, Shetty Suchith S, Zaid Syed, Athar Ammar, Aronow Wilbert S, Timmermans Robert J, Ahmad Hasan, Cooper Howard A, Naidu Srihari S, Panza Julio A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of transradial vs transfemoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without cardiogenic shock.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of STEMI patients who underwent transradial angiography (TRA) compared to transfemoral angiography (TFA). Our outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause mortality, severe bleeding, access site bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major vascular complications. Summary statistics are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: In a pooled analysis of 17 RCTs with 12,118 randomized patients, the use of transradial compared to transfemoral approach in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock was associated with a significant reduction in MACE [OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.73-0.99; p = 0.04; NNT = 111; I2 = 0%)] and all-cause mortality [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.57-0.88; p < 0.01; NNT = 111; I2 = 0%)]. Severe bleeding [OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.44-0.74; p < 0.01; NNT = 77; I2 = 0%)], access-site bleeding [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.26-0.59; p < 0.01; NNT = 67; I2 = 24%)], and major vascular complications [OR of 0.31 (95% CI 0.17-0.55; p < 0.01; NNT = 125; I2 = 0%)] were lower in TRA compared to TFA. There was no difference in stroke (0.6% vs 0.5%) or recurrent myocardial infarction (2.01% vs 2.02%) between the two approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: For coronary intervention in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock, there is a clear mortality benefit with the TRA over TFA. Further studies are needed to see if this mortality benefit persists over the long-term.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of STEMI patients who underwent transradial angiography (TRA) compared to transfemoral angiography (TFA). Our outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause mortality, severe bleeding, access site bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major vascular complications. Summary statistics are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: In a pooled analysis of 17 RCTs with 12,118 randomized patients, the use of transradial compared to transfemoral approach in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock was associated with a significant reduction in MACE [OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.73-0.99; p = 0.04; NNT = 111; I2 = 0%)] and all-cause mortality [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.57-0.88; p < 0.01; NNT = 111; I2 = 0%)]. Severe bleeding [OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.44-0.74; p < 0.01; NNT = 77; I2 = 0%)], access-site bleeding [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.26-0.59; p < 0.01; NNT = 67; I2 = 24%)], and major vascular complications [OR of 0.31 (95% CI 0.17-0.55; p < 0.01; NNT = 125; I2 = 0%)] were lower in TRA compared to TFA. There was no difference in stroke (0.6% vs 0.5%) or recurrent myocardial infarction (2.01% vs 2.02%) between the two approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: For coronary intervention in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock, there is a clear mortality benefit with the TRA over TFA. Further studies are needed to see if this mortality benefit persists over the long-term.