Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The purpose of this study was to determine if closure of the femoral artery access site using a percutaneous arterial suture device (Perclose, Menlo Park, CA) in patients undergoing coronary stenting can result in the same benefits as seen with radial artery access. A total of 218 consecutive patients underwent coronary stenting (109 femoral, 109 radial) by investigators experienced with each technique. The two groups were matched in terms of sex, age, clinical presentation (50% acute), number of vessels and lesions stented, and lesion morphology. The relative costs of the femoral and radial procedures were examined using a decision analytic model and sensitivity analysis. The suture device was not used in 20/109 patients (18%) for anatomic reasons and failed to obtain hemostasis in 9/89 patients (10%). One radial patient had an occluded radial artery postprocedure, but this was recanalized at follow-up a month later. Primary success, procedural complications, postprocedure length of stay, and the percentage of patients discharged the same day were the same in both groups. Because of the added time to deploy Perclose, total procedure time was significantly longer in the femoral group (57 +/- 22 min femoral vs. 44 +/- 22 min radial, P < 0.01). Access site complications occurred only in the femoral group. More patients were ambulatory the same day of the procedure in the radial group (95% radial vs. 56% femoral, P < 0.01). The cost of the radial approach was substantially less than the femoral approach because of lower supply costs and fewer access complications. The transradial approach is a dominant strategy for coronary stenting, offering better outcomes at lower cost. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent. 49:150-156, 2000.
Mann et al. (Tue,) studied this question.