Journal of interventional cardiology · 2016
Transradial Versus Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting: A 16-Year Single-Center Experience.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Mendiz Oscar A, Fava Carlos, Lev Gustavo, Caponi Gaspar, Valdivieso León
Аннотация
AIMS: Limited data exist on radial access in carotid artery stenting (CAS). This single-center study was performed to compare the outcome and complication rates of transradial (TR) and transfemoral (TF) CAS.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The clinical and angiographic data of 775 consecutive patients with high risk for carotid endarterectomy, treated between 1999 and 2016 by CAS with cerebral protection, were evaluated. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to vascular access: TR (n = 101; 13%) and TF (n = 674). Primary combined end-point: in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebral events. Secondary end-points: angiographic outcome of the procedure and crossover rate to another puncture site. Angiographic success was achieved in all 775 patients, the crossover rate was 4.9% in the TR and 0% in the TF group (P < 0.05). TR was performed at the right side in 97% of cases. The incidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebral events was 2% in the TR and 3.6% in the TF group (P = ns).
CONCLUSIONS: The TR approach for CAS is safe and efficacious, with acceptable cross-over rate. In both groups, vascular complications rarely occurred.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The clinical and angiographic data of 775 consecutive patients with high risk for carotid endarterectomy, treated between 1999 and 2016 by CAS with cerebral protection, were evaluated. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to vascular access: TR (n = 101; 13%) and TF (n = 674). Primary combined end-point: in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebral events. Secondary end-points: angiographic outcome of the procedure and crossover rate to another puncture site. Angiographic success was achieved in all 775 patients, the crossover rate was 4.9% in the TR and 0% in the TF group (P < 0.05). TR was performed at the right side in 97% of cases. The incidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebral events was 2% in the TR and 3.6% in the TF group (P = ns).
CONCLUSIONS: The TR approach for CAS is safe and efficacious, with acceptable cross-over rate. In both groups, vascular complications rarely occurred.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAngiographyArgentinaBlood Vessel Prosthesis ImplantationCardiovascular DiseasesCarotid ArteriesCarotid StenosisCatheterization, PeripheralFemaleFemoral ArteryHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePostoperative ComplicationsRadial ArteryRisk AdjustmentRisk FactorsStentsTreatment Outcome