Why the study?
Does the transradial approach improve clinical outcomes and reduce bleeding compared to the transfemoral approach in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty and abciximab?
Population
119 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty and receiving the…
Comparison
Transradial approach for primary angioplasty vs Transfemoral approach for primary angioplasty
Design
Cohort, None (nonrandomized study)
Follow-up
1-month
Key result
Transradial access for primary angioplasty in AMI had similar freedom from major cardiac events (97% vs 94.5%, P=0.19) and fewer bleeding complications (0% vs 5.5%, P=0.03) than transfemoral access.
Authors
Loading...
Radial access was associated with shorter stay but higher radiation; leaves open net benefit in primary PCI with abciximab.
Cohort (n=119)
Does the transradial approach improve clinical outcomes and reduce bleeding compared to the transfemoral approach in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty and abciximab?
Absolute Event Rate: 97% vs 94.5%
p-value: p=0.19
In patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty with abciximab, transradial access reduces access site bleeding complications and hospital length of stay compared to transfemoral access, despite higher radiation exposure.
François et al. (2003) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=119). Transradial approach vs. Transfemoral approach was evaluated on Freedom from major cardiac events at 1-month follow-up (p=0.19). Transradial access for primary angioplasty in AMI had similar freedom from major cardiac events (97% vs 94.5%, P=0.19) and fewer bleeding complications (0% vs 5.5%, P=0.03) than transfemoral access.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: