The Rise of Transradial Artery Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes in Australia.
Acute Coronary Syndrome
/ diagnosis
Aged
Australia
/ epidemiology
Catheterization, Peripheral
/ adverse effects
Female
Femoral Artery
/ surgery
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
/ adverse effects
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Radial Artery
/ surgery
Retrospective Studies
Survival Analysis
Journal
Journal of interventional cardiology
ISSN: 1540-8183
Titre abrégé: J Interv Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8907826
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
06
07
2020
revised:
06
11
2020
accepted:
11
11
2020
entrez:
14
12
2020
pubmed:
15
12
2020
medline:
24
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via transradial artery access (TRA) or transfemoral artery access (TFA). Over the last decade, evidence for the benefit of TRA for PCI has grown, leading to a steady uptake of TRA around the world. Despite this, the topic remains controversial with contrary evidence to suggest no significant benefit over TFA. A retrospective study of consecutive ACS patients from 2011 to 2017 who underwent PCI via TRA or TFA. The primary outcome was Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR), or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding events scored 2 or higher, haematoma formation, and stent thrombosis, in addition to all individual components of MACE. We treated 3624 patients (77% male), with PCI via TFA ( Despite the limitations secondary to the observational nature of our study and multiple confounders, our results are in line with results of major trials and, as such, we feel that our results support the use of TRA as the preferred access site in patients undergoing PCI for ACS to improve patient outcomes.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via transradial artery access (TRA) or transfemoral artery access (TFA).
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Over the last decade, evidence for the benefit of TRA for PCI has grown, leading to a steady uptake of TRA around the world. Despite this, the topic remains controversial with contrary evidence to suggest no significant benefit over TFA.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective study of consecutive ACS patients from 2011 to 2017 who underwent PCI via TRA or TFA. The primary outcome was Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR), or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding events scored 2 or higher, haematoma formation, and stent thrombosis, in addition to all individual components of MACE.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We treated 3624 patients (77% male), with PCI via TFA (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the limitations secondary to the observational nature of our study and multiple confounders, our results are in line with results of major trials and, as such, we feel that our results support the use of TRA as the preferred access site in patients undergoing PCI for ACS to improve patient outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33312077
doi: 10.1155/2020/4397697
pmc: PMC7719530
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4397697Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Ryan James Ocsan et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest in the publication of this manuscript.
Références
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008 Aug;1(4):379-86
pubmed: 19463333
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Sep;8(11):1405-9
pubmed: 26404191
Lancet. 2011 Apr 23;377(9775):1409-20
pubmed: 21470671
Am J Cardiol. 2016 Jan 15;117(2):172-8
pubmed: 26704032
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep;11(9):e000035
pubmed: 30354598
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jan 7;40(2):87-165
pubmed: 30165437
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Dec 1;92(7):E518-E526
pubmed: 30244540
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Nov 1;92(5):842-843
pubmed: 30450707
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jan 30;71(4):371-381
pubmed: 29154813
JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Feb 1;5(2):126-134
pubmed: 31895439
Am Heart J. 2015 Nov;170(5):880-6
pubmed: 26542495
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Jul 25;9(14):1419-34
pubmed: 27372195
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 18;60(24):2481-9
pubmed: 22858390
Eur Heart J. 2012 Oct;33(20):2521-6
pubmed: 22815330
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 18;63(10):973-5
pubmed: 24269364
Am Heart J. 2009 Apr;157(4):740-5
pubmed: 19332204
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Dec 1;90(7):1093-1104
pubmed: 28544320
Glob Heart. 2018 Dec;13(4):305-338
pubmed: 30154043
Heart Lung Circ. 2017 Mar;26(3):258-267
pubmed: 27697388
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 18;63(10):964-72
pubmed: 24211309
Circulation. 2011 Jun 14;123(23):2736-47
pubmed: 21670242
Lancet. 2011 Jun 25;377(9784):2193-204
pubmed: 21665265
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 May 9;9(9):897-907
pubmed: 27151605
Heart Lung Circ. 2016 Sep;25(9):895-951
pubmed: 27476580
JAMA. 2013 Mar 13;309(10):1022-9
pubmed: 23483177
Lancet. 2015 Jun 20;385(9986):2465-76
pubmed: 25791214
Open Heart. 2014 Feb 13;1(1):e000021
pubmed: 25332786
Lancet. 2015 Jun 20;385(9986):2437-9
pubmed: 25791213
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Feb 1;3(1):57-62
pubmed: 20118151
Heart Lung Circ. 2017 Jan;26(1):41-48
pubmed: 27451348
Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2017;16(1):79-92
pubmed: 28490313
Am J Cardiol. 2005 Nov 1;96(9):1200-6
pubmed: 16253582