Improved in-hospital outcome for radial access in a large contemporary cohort of primary percutaneous coronary intervention.
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI)
cardiogenic shock
outcome
radial access
registry
Journal
Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy
ISSN: 2223-3652
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101601613
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
04
12
2020
accepted:
28
03
2021
entrez:
23
7
2021
pubmed:
24
7
2021
medline:
24
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Randomised controlled trials have shown diverse results for radial access in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Moreover, it is questionable whether radial access improves outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing PPCI. We aimed to investigate the outcome according to access site in patients with or without cardiogenic shock, in daily clinical practice. For the present analysis we included 9,980 patients undergoing PPCI between 2012 and 2018, registered in the multi-centre, nationwide registry on PCI for myocardial infarction (MI). In-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and net adverse clinical events (NACE) until discharge were compared between 4,498 patients with radial (45%) and 5,482 patients with femoral (55%) access. Radial compared to femoral access was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (3.5% Radial access for patients with acute MI undergoing PPCI is associated with improved survival in a large contemporary cohort of daily practice. However, this beneficial effect is restricted to hemodynamically stable patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Randomised controlled trials have shown diverse results for radial access in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Moreover, it is questionable whether radial access improves outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing PPCI. We aimed to investigate the outcome according to access site in patients with or without cardiogenic shock, in daily clinical practice.
METHODS
METHODS
For the present analysis we included 9,980 patients undergoing PPCI between 2012 and 2018, registered in the multi-centre, nationwide registry on PCI for myocardial infarction (MI). In-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and net adverse clinical events (NACE) until discharge were compared between 4,498 patients with radial (45%) and 5,482 patients with femoral (55%) access.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Radial compared to femoral access was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (3.5%
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Radial access for patients with acute MI undergoing PPCI is associated with improved survival in a large contemporary cohort of daily practice. However, this beneficial effect is restricted to hemodynamically stable patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34295699
doi: 10.21037/cdt-20-977
pii: cdt-11-03-726
pmc: PMC8261746
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
726-735Informations de copyright
2021 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/cdt-20-977). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Eur Heart J. 2017 Apr 7;38(14):1069-1080
pubmed: 28329389
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Jan;8(1 Pt A):20-9
pubmed: 25616814
Lancet. 2011 Apr 23;377(9775):1409-20
pubmed: 21470671
N Engl J Med. 2008 May 22;358(21):2218-30
pubmed: 18499566
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2010 Apr;122(7-8):220-8
pubmed: 20503021
Eur Heart J. 2005 Feb;26(3):308-13
pubmed: 15618029
JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Feb 1;5(2):126-134
pubmed: 31895439
Am Heart J. 2014 Jun;167(6):900-8.e1
pubmed: 24890541
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 18;63(10):964-72
pubmed: 24211309
Eur Heart J. 2018 Apr 1;39(13):1065-1074
pubmed: 29452351
Eur Heart J. 2018 Jan 7;39(2):119-177
pubmed: 28886621
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Oct;86 Suppl 1:S8-14
pubmed: 25945803
Am Heart J. 2013 Mar;165(3):280-5
pubmed: 23453093
Am Heart J. 2009 Jan;157(1):132-40
pubmed: 19081409
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Dec 15;120(12):2135-2140
pubmed: 29103603
Am Heart J. 2013 Mar;165(3):338-43
pubmed: 23453102
Eur Heart J. 2011 Dec;32(23):2954-61
pubmed: 21920970
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Nov 27;10(22):2242-2254
pubmed: 29102582
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 18;60(24):2490-9
pubmed: 23103036
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 18;63(10):954-63
pubmed: 24269362
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 18;60(24):2481-9
pubmed: 22858390
Lancet. 2015 Jun 20;385(9986):2465-76
pubmed: 25791214
Open Heart. 2014 Feb 13;1(1):e000021
pubmed: 25332786