JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2024
Clinical Outcomes of Transradial vs Nontransradial Aortoiliac Endovascular Therapy.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Iida Osamu, Takahara Mitsuyoshi, Fujihara Masahiko, Higashino Naoko, Hayakawa Naoki, Horie Kazunori, Yamamoto Yoshito, Kozuki Amane, Suzuki Kenji, Shinozaki Norihiko, Yokoi Hiroyoshi, Nanto Shinsuke, Higuchi Yoshiharu, Nakamura Masato, COMFORT Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The introduction of radial-specific equipment has made transradial (TR) aortoiliac (AI) endovascular therapy (EVT) more convenient.
OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to investigate the perioperative outcomes of the TR approach in patients undergoing AI EVT for symptomatic peripheral artery disease.
METHODS: The COMFORT (Contemporary Strategy for Aortoiliac Intervention) registry was a prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolling patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease undergoing AI EVT between January 2021 and June 2023. The primary outcome was perioperative complications, whereas the secondary outcomes included core laboratory-evaluated residual stenosis >30%, time to hemostasis, time to ambulation, 30-day patency, and 30-day limb symptoms. These outcomes were compared between TR and non-TR AI EVT after propensity score matching.
RESULTS: The TR approach was selected for 231 of the 947 patients (24.3%). The TR approach was chosen more in patients with a higher ankle-brachial index, chronic total occlusion, aortic lesion, bare nitinol stent implantation, and plain angioplasty, whereas it was chosen less in patients with dialysis, a history of AI EVT, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, bilateral calcification, and simultaneous infrainguinal EVT (all P < 0.05). After propensity score matching, the incidence of perioperative complications did not differ significantly between the groups (TR group: 6.0% vs non-TR group: 5.1%; P = 0.69). The proportions of residual stenosis, 30-day patency, and 30-day limb symptoms were not significantly different (all P > 0.05); however, the time to hemostasis and the time to ambulation were shorter in the TR group (both P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Non-TR AI EVT and TR AI EVT using radial-specific equipment were associated with a similar risk of perioperative complications. The TR approach helps shorten the time required for hemostasis and ambulation.
OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to investigate the perioperative outcomes of the TR approach in patients undergoing AI EVT for symptomatic peripheral artery disease.
METHODS: The COMFORT (Contemporary Strategy for Aortoiliac Intervention) registry was a prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolling patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease undergoing AI EVT between January 2021 and June 2023. The primary outcome was perioperative complications, whereas the secondary outcomes included core laboratory-evaluated residual stenosis >30%, time to hemostasis, time to ambulation, 30-day patency, and 30-day limb symptoms. These outcomes were compared between TR and non-TR AI EVT after propensity score matching.
RESULTS: The TR approach was selected for 231 of the 947 patients (24.3%). The TR approach was chosen more in patients with a higher ankle-brachial index, chronic total occlusion, aortic lesion, bare nitinol stent implantation, and plain angioplasty, whereas it was chosen less in patients with dialysis, a history of AI EVT, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, bilateral calcification, and simultaneous infrainguinal EVT (all P < 0.05). After propensity score matching, the incidence of perioperative complications did not differ significantly between the groups (TR group: 6.0% vs non-TR group: 5.1%; P = 0.69). The proportions of residual stenosis, 30-day patency, and 30-day limb symptoms were not significantly different (all P > 0.05); however, the time to hemostasis and the time to ambulation were shorter in the TR group (both P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Non-TR AI EVT and TR AI EVT using radial-specific equipment were associated with a similar risk of perioperative complications. The TR approach helps shorten the time required for hemostasis and ambulation.