Journal of cardiology · 2022
Feasibility and safety of coronary catheterization with the distal radial approach for hemodialysis patients.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Shima Yuki, Kubo Shunsuke, Ikuta Akihiro, Ohya Masanobu, Tada Takeshi, Tanaka Hiroyuki, Fuku Yasushi, Kadota Kazushige
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The distal radial approach (DRA) has been proposed as an alternative approach for coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, its outcomes in hemodialysis (HD) patients have not been well studied in detail. We aimed to determine the feasibility and safety of coronary intervention with the DRA for HD patients.
METHODS: We performed CAG or PCI with the DRA in 2500 consecutive patients between October 2018 and February 2020. The patients included 98 HD patients (HD group) and 2402 non-HD patients (non-HD group). The primary endpoints were the rates of procedural success and puncture site-related complications. The secondary endpoints were puncture site-related complications one year after the procedure. As a subanalysis, we also compared the outcomes on the basis of CAG and PCI.
RESULTS: The procedural success rates were similar in the HD and non-HD groups (80.6% vs. 82.6%, p = 0.61 for the entire cohort; 78.3% vs. 80.9%, p = 0.58 for CAG; and 86.2% vs. 88.0%, p = 0.78 for PCI). The bleeding complications rates were low and there was no difference between groups (6.1% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.33 for the entire cohort; 0% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.21 for CAG; and 20.7% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.079 for PCI). Radial artery occlusion occurred in only one patient in the HD group after the procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Although modified hemostasis methods could be necessary for HD patients undergoing PCI, coronary intervention with the DRA is feasible and safe for both HD and non-HD patients.
METHODS: We performed CAG or PCI with the DRA in 2500 consecutive patients between October 2018 and February 2020. The patients included 98 HD patients (HD group) and 2402 non-HD patients (non-HD group). The primary endpoints were the rates of procedural success and puncture site-related complications. The secondary endpoints were puncture site-related complications one year after the procedure. As a subanalysis, we also compared the outcomes on the basis of CAG and PCI.
RESULTS: The procedural success rates were similar in the HD and non-HD groups (80.6% vs. 82.6%, p = 0.61 for the entire cohort; 78.3% vs. 80.9%, p = 0.58 for CAG; and 86.2% vs. 88.0%, p = 0.78 for PCI). The bleeding complications rates were low and there was no difference between groups (6.1% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.33 for the entire cohort; 0% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.21 for CAG; and 20.7% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.079 for PCI). Radial artery occlusion occurred in only one patient in the HD group after the procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Although modified hemostasis methods could be necessary for HD patients undergoing PCI, coronary intervention with the DRA is feasible and safe for both HD and non-HD patients.