Five-year experience with transradial coronary angioplasty in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Zoltá ; n Ruzsa ; Imre Ungi ; Tamá ; s Horvá ; th ; Ró ; bert Sepp ; Zsolt Zimmermann ; Attila Thury ; Zoltá ; n Jambrik ; Viktor Sasi ; Gá ; bor Tó ; th ; Tamá ; s Forster ; Attila Nemes
• 关键词：Percutaneous coronary intervention ; Transradial ; Transfemoral ; Complication
• 刊名：Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine
• 出版年：2009
• 出版时间：April-June 2009
• 年：2009
• 卷：10
• 期：2
• 页码：73-79
• 全文大小：138 K

文摘

Background and purpose

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via radial approach has been shown to be an alternative to femoral approach in emergency cases; however, its feasibility has been questioned. This single-center study was performed to compare the outcomes and complication rates between transradial (TR) and transfemoral (TF) PCI in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Methods and materials

The clinical and angiographic data of 582 consecutive STEMI patients treated with PCI between 2001 and 2006 were evaluated in a retrospective study. Forty-three patients were excluded from the present study due to cardiogenic shock or rescue PCI. Patients (n=539) were categorized into the TR group (n=167) or the TF group (n=372), and several parameters were evaluated to assess the advantages and drawbacks of TR access: access-site crossover, rate of access-site complications, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, X-ray area dose, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 month, and consumption of angioplasty equipment.

Results

In the TR group, the crossover rate to femoral access was 5 % , while in the TF group, it was 0.8 % (P<.05). There was a significant difference, in both major and minor access-site complications, between the TR group and the TF group (0 % vs. 5 % , P<.05, and 4 % vs. 9 % , P<.05, respectively). Consumption of angioplasty equipment proved to be the same for the two groups. The MACE rate was 4 % in the TR group and 11 % in the TF group (P<.05).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the TR approach is a safe and effective way to treat STEMI; furthermore, site-related complications are less common with this approach.