Journal of interventional cardiology · 2020
Feasibility and Safety of the Distal Transradial Artery for Coronary Diagnostic or Interventional Catheterization.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Lin Yaowang, Sun Xin, Chen Ruimian, Liu Huadong, Pang Xinli, Chen Jie, Dong Shaohong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This prospective study compared the success rate and safety of a distal transradial artery (dTRA) approach to that of the conventional transradial artery (TRA) for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention.
METHODS: From January 2019 to April 2020, nine hundred consecutive patients (height < 190 cm) scheduled for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary interventions were randomly and equally assigned to receive either dTRA or conventional TRA catheterization.
RESULTS: Successful access was achieved in 96.00% and 96.67% of the dTRA and conventional TRA groups, respectively (P=0.814). Compared with the TRA group, patients in the dTRA experienced significantly less hemostatic band removal time (150.5 ± 50.5 cf. 210.6 ± 60.5 min, P=0.032); minor bleeding of the access site (2.44% cf. 6.44%, P=0.038); hemostatic band cost (USD; 0.1 cf. 59.4, P=0); and postprocedural radial artery occlusion (1.56% cf. 3.78%, P=0.035). A lower body mass index was a higher risk factor for dTRA access failure (odds ratio = 0.79, P=0.024), with a cutoff of 22.04 kg/m2.
CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional TRA, dTRA had a comparable high success rate, with fewer associated complications. Clinicians should use the dTRA with caution in patients with low body mass index.
METHODS: From January 2019 to April 2020, nine hundred consecutive patients (height < 190 cm) scheduled for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary interventions were randomly and equally assigned to receive either dTRA or conventional TRA catheterization.
RESULTS: Successful access was achieved in 96.00% and 96.67% of the dTRA and conventional TRA groups, respectively (P=0.814). Compared with the TRA group, patients in the dTRA experienced significantly less hemostatic band removal time (150.5 ± 50.5 cf. 210.6 ± 60.5 min, P=0.032); minor bleeding of the access site (2.44% cf. 6.44%, P=0.038); hemostatic band cost (USD; 0.1 cf. 59.4, P=0); and postprocedural radial artery occlusion (1.56% cf. 3.78%, P=0.035). A lower body mass index was a higher risk factor for dTRA access failure (odds ratio = 0.79, P=0.024), with a cutoff of 22.04 kg/m2.
CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional TRA, dTRA had a comparable high success rate, with fewer associated complications. Clinicians should use the dTRA with caution in patients with low body mass index.