Key result
Trans-radial percutaneous coronary intervention significantly reduced access site bleeding (2.2% vs 8.9%) and major hematoma (0% vs 4.4%) compared to the trans-femoral approach.
Why the study?
Trans-radial coronary catheterization is increasingly used instead of the transfemoral approach, prompting a comparison of procedural and post-procedural vascular complications during PCI.
Does trans-radial PCI reduce vascular complications compared to trans-femoral PCI in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Observational (n=180)
Non-randomized
No
Does trans-radial PCI reduce vascular complications compared to trans-femoral PCI in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Trans-radial PCI is associated with fewer bleeding and hematoma complications, earlier ambulation, and shorter hospital stays compared to trans-femoral PCI, despite higher rates of arterial spasm and vessel occlusion.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May reduce access-site complications with trans-radial PCI; leaves open net benefit versus femoral access pending randomized data.
Background and Objective: Trans-radial approach of coronary catheterization has been increasingly used as an alternative to transfemoral approach due to less vascular complications, earlier ambulation and improved patient comfort. The aim of the study was to compare procedural and post procedural vascular complications in patients with percutaneous coronary intervention by trans-radial and transfemoral approach. Methods: This observational comparative study was conducted in the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases between June 2015 to May 2016. A total of 180 patients were categorized into two groups according to the approach of the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Group I comprising 90 patients who underwent trans-radial PCI and group II consists of 90 patients who underwent transfemoral PCI. Patients with an abnormal Allen’s test, acute coronary syndrome, history of coronary artery bypass surgery, chronic renal insufficiency or older age (>75 years) were excluded. Results: Patient demographics were the same in both groups. The mean procedural time in min (37.44±5.13 vs 34.14±4.42, p=0.004) and fluoroscopy time in min (21.62±4.11 vs 17.55±2.78, p=0.02) were more in TR-PCI group but the mean haemostasis time in min (7.58±1.11 vs 15.59±3.33, p=0.005) and ambulation time in hour (0.00±0.00 vs 15.59±3.33, p=<0.001) were more in TF-PCI group. Significant arterial spasm following puncture (6.7% vs 0%, p=0.01) were found in trans-radial group but access site bleeding during procedure (2.2% vs 8.9%, p=0.04) were more in TF-PCI group. After the procedure major hematoma (0% vs 4.4%, p=0.04), minor hematoma (5.7% vs 14.4%, p=0.04) and ecchymosis (4.4% vs 13.3%) were significant in TF-PCI group but vessel occlusion (5.7% vs 0%, p=0.02) were significant in TR-PCI group. The mean hospital stays, day (1.64±0.42 vs 2.54±0.62) were more in TF-PCI group. Conclusion: TR-PCI is safe in respect of procedural and post procedural vascular complications. Trans-radial procedure leads to improved quality of life after the procedure and thus gives much comfort to the patient. It also shortened mean duration of hospital stay. So, trans-radial approach is an attractive alternative to conventional transfemoral approach. Bangladesh Heart Journal 2019; 34(2) : 86-91
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kawsar et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=180). Trans-radial percutaneous coronary intervention vs. Trans-femoral percutaneous coronary intervention was evaluated on Access site bleeding (p=0.04). Trans-radial percutaneous coronary intervention significantly reduced access site bleeding (2.2% vs 8.9%) and major hematoma (0% vs 4.4%) compared to the trans-femoral approach.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: