The Journal of invasive cardiology · 2022
Outcomes of Radial Versus Femoral Access in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Farhat Salman, El Sabbagh Abdallah, Al-Hijji Mohammed, Pierre Keniel, Lugo-Fagundo Nahyr S, Sandoval Yader, Gharacholou Michael S, Pollak Peter M, Singh Mandeep, Eleid Mackram F, Al-Khouli Mohammed, Holmes David R, Guerrero Mayra, Gulati Rajiv, Bell Malcolm, Rihal Charanjit S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The safety and feasibility of radial access in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has not been studied.
METHODS: This study included consecutive patients who underwent PCI within 30 days before TAVR at Mayo Clinic. Vascular access was left to the discretion of the operator. Baseline demographics, procedural data, PCI outcomes, and subsequent transfemoral TAVR outcomes were extracted from patient charts.
RESULTS: A total of 331 patients were included in this study, with 107 patients undergoing PCI via radial access (rPCI), and 224 via femoral access (fPCI). Mean age was 80.6 years and 35.6% were females (35.5% rPCI vs 35.3% fPCI). More patients in the fPCI group had previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery (13.1% rPCI vs 34.4% fPCI; P<.001). Fluoroscopy time (13.36 minutes vs 18.86 minutes; P<.001) and contrast use (115 mL vs 140 mL; P<.01) were lower in the rPCI group than in the fPCI group. Crossover rate from radial to femoral was 6.5%. There were more access-site hematomas in the fPCI group (2.8% rPCI vs 14.3% fPCI; P<.001), with no statistically significant rate of other access-related complications. There was no difference in stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or unplanned surgery. There was no difference in bleeding or stroke between both groups during subsequent transfemoral TAVR.
CONCLUSION: Radial access for pre-TAVR PCI is feasible and safe and is associated with a lower rate of access-site hematoma. This study supports the increased use of transradial access for pre-TAVR PCI.
METHODS: This study included consecutive patients who underwent PCI within 30 days before TAVR at Mayo Clinic. Vascular access was left to the discretion of the operator. Baseline demographics, procedural data, PCI outcomes, and subsequent transfemoral TAVR outcomes were extracted from patient charts.
RESULTS: A total of 331 patients were included in this study, with 107 patients undergoing PCI via radial access (rPCI), and 224 via femoral access (fPCI). Mean age was 80.6 years and 35.6% were females (35.5% rPCI vs 35.3% fPCI). More patients in the fPCI group had previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery (13.1% rPCI vs 34.4% fPCI; P<.001). Fluoroscopy time (13.36 minutes vs 18.86 minutes; P<.001) and contrast use (115 mL vs 140 mL; P<.01) were lower in the rPCI group than in the fPCI group. Crossover rate from radial to femoral was 6.5%. There were more access-site hematomas in the fPCI group (2.8% rPCI vs 14.3% fPCI; P<.001), with no statistically significant rate of other access-related complications. There was no difference in stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or unplanned surgery. There was no difference in bleeding or stroke between both groups during subsequent transfemoral TAVR.
CONCLUSION: Radial access for pre-TAVR PCI is feasible and safe and is associated with a lower rate of access-site hematoma. This study supports the increased use of transradial access for pre-TAVR PCI.