...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American College of Cardiology >Effects of radial versus femoral artery access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without st-segment elevation
【24h】

Effects of radial versus femoral artery access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without st-segment elevation

机译:st动脉和股动脉通路对急性冠状动脉综合征伴或不伴分段抬高的患者的影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the consistency of the effects of radial artery access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and in those with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). Background: The safety associated with radial access may translate into mortality benefit in higher-risk patients, such as those with STEMI. Methods: We compared efficacy and bleeding outcomes in patients randomized to radial versus femoral access in RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention trial) (N = 7,021) separately in those with STEMI (n = 1,958) and NSTEACS (n = 5,063). Interaction tests between access site and acute coronary syndrome type were performed. Results: Baseline characteristics were well matched between radial and femoral groups. There were significant interactions for the primary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/strokeon-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding (p = 0.025), the secondary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke (p = 0.011) and mortality (p = 0.001). In STEMI patients, radial access reduced the primary outcome compared with femoral access (3.1% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60; p = 0.026). For NSTEACS, the rates were 3.8% and 3.5%, respectively (p = 0.49). In STEMI patients, death/myocardial infarction/stroke were also reduced with radial access (2.7% vs. 4.6%; HR 0.59; p = 0.031), as was all-cause mortality (1.3% vs. 3.2%; HR: 0.39; p = 0.006), with no difference in NSTEACS patients. Operator radial experience was greater in STEMI versus NSTEACS patients (400 vs. 326 cases/year, p < 0.0001). In primary PCI, mortality was reduced with radial access (1.4% vs. 3.1%; HR: 0.46; p = 0.041). Conclusions: In patients with STEMI, radial artery access reduced the primary outcome and mortality. No such benefit was observed in patients with NSTEACS. The radial approach may be preferred in STEMI patients when the operator has considerable radial experience. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273)
机译:目的:本研究的目的是确定ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)和非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征(NSTEACS)的of动脉通路效果的一致性。背景:与radial动脉入路相关的安全性可能会转化为高危患者(例如STEMI患者)的死亡率提高。方法:我们比较了STEMI(n = 1,958)和NSTEACS(n = 5,063)的患者在RIVAL(RadIal Vs股动脉入路进行冠状动脉介入治疗)(N = 7,021)中随机分为radial骨入路与股骨入路的患者的疗效和出血结果。进行了进入部位和急性冠状动脉综合征类型之间的相互作用测试。结果:radial骨和股骨组的基线特征非常吻合。死亡/心肌梗死/中风/非冠状动脉搭桥术相关的主要出血(p = 0.025),死亡/心肌梗死/中风(p = 0.011)的次要结果与主要死亡,死亡(心肌梗死/心肌梗死/中风/非冠状动脉搭桥术相关的主要出血)之间存在显着的相互作用。 p = 0.001)。在STEMI患者中,radial股入路与股骨入路相比降低了主要结局(3.1%对5.2%;危险比[HR]:0.60; p = 0.026)。对于NSTEACS,发生率分别为3.8%和3.5%(p = 0.49)。在STEMI患者中,radial动脉入路也可降低死亡/心肌梗塞/中风(2.7%vs. 4.6%; HR 0.59; p = 0.031),全因死亡率也一样(1.3%vs. 3.2%; HR:0.39; p = 0.006),在NSTEACS患者中没有差异。与NSTEACS患者相比,STEMI患者的radial骨操作者经验更大(400 vs. 326例/年,p <0.0001)。在原发性PCI中,通过radial动脉入路可降低死亡率(1.4%vs. 3.1%; HR:0.46; p = 0.041)。结论:在STEMI患者中,radial动脉入路可降低主要结局和死亡率。 NSTEACS患者未观察到此类益处。当操作者具有相当多的径向经验时,在STEMI患者中可能首选放射治疗。 (经侵入性策略[RIVAL]治疗的不稳定型心绞痛或心肌梗死患者的经-动脉与经股动脉经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)入路方法的试验; NCT01014273)

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号