Key result
Transradial rescue PCI is linked to an absolute ~13% reduction in vascular complications vs. transfemoral access.
Why the study?
Transfemoral PCI in acute myocardial infarction treated with systemic thrombolysis is associated with significant vascular complications, and the potential benefits of a transradial approach needed evaluation.
Does transradial percutaneous coronary intervention reduce vascular complications and length of stay compared to transfemoral intervention in STEMI patients undergoing rescue angioplasty?
Cohort (n=287)
Does transradial percutaneous coronary intervention reduce vascular complications and length of stay compared to transfemoral intervention in STEMI patients undergoing rescue angioplasty?
Transradial rescue angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction is associated with significantly fewer vascular complications and shorter hospital stays compared to the transfemoral approach.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Transradial rescue PCI was associated with fewer vascular complications and shorter stays; leaves open whether benefits extend to mortality or warrant practice change.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes for transradial and transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing rescue angioplasty. BACKGROUND: Transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with systemic thrombolysis is associated with a significant risk of vascular complications. A transradial approach may reduce vascular complications, improve mobilization and facilitate earlier discharge. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, clinical outcomes for 287 consecutive patients undergoing rescue angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction were determined. Data were recorded using a standardized proforma and analyzed using SPSS. RESULTS: Procedural success was similar for the transradial and transfemoral routes (98% vs. 93%; P = 0.3). There was a reduction in vascular complications (0 (0%) vs. 32 (13%); P < 0.01) and post-procedural length of stay (7.0 +/- 7.9 vs. 7.9 +/- 5.6 days; P < 0.005) in the radial group when compared with the femoral group. There were no differences in procedural or in-hospital mortality, procedure duration, or radiation dose between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Rescue angioplasty performed via the radial artery is safe, effective, and associated with a reduction in vascular complications and length of hospital stay when compared with the femoral approach. These findings suggest that where facilities and experience allow rescue angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction should be performed via the radial artery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cruden et al. (2007) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction undergoing rescue angioplasty (n=287). Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention vs. Transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention was evaluated on Vascular complications (p=<0.01). Transradial rescue angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction was associated with fewer vascular complications compared with the transfemoral approach.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: