Columbia University Medical Center and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA.
EuroIntervention. 2011 Dec;7(8):905-16. doi: 10.4244/EIJV7I8A144.
We sought to determine whether a transradial (TR) approach compared with a transfemoral (TF) approach was associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a post hoc analysis of the HORIZONS-AMI trial. There is a paucity of data comparing the TR approach with the TF approach in patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI and contemporary anticoagulant regimens.
In HORIZONS-AMI, primary PCI for STEMI was performed in 3,340 patients, either by the TR (n=200) or TF approach (n=3,134). Endpoints included the 30-day and one-year rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, reinfarction, stroke or target vessel revascularisation), non CABG-related major bleeding, and net adverse clinical events (NACE: MACE or major bleeding). TR compared to TF access was associated with significantly lower 30-day rates of composite death or reinfarction (1.0% vs. 4.3%, OR 0.23, 95% CI [0.06,0.94], p=0.02), non CABG-related major bleeding (3.5% vs. 7.6%, OR 0.45, 95% CI [0.21,0.95], p=0.03), MACE (2.0% vs. 5.6%, OR 0.35, 95% CI [0.13,0.95], p=0.02), and NACE (5.0% vs. 11.6%,OR 0.42, 95% CI [0.22,0.78], p<0.01). At one year, the TR group still had significantly reduced rates of death or reinfarction (4.0% vs. 7.8%, OR 0.51, 95% CI [0.25,1.02], p=0.05), non CABG-related major bleeding (3.5% vs. 8.1%, OR 0.42, 95% CI [0.20,0.89], p=0.02), MACE (6.0% vs. 12.4%, OR 0.47, 95% CI [0.26,0.83], p<0.01) and NACE (8.5% vs. 17.8%, OR 0.45, 95% CI [0.28,0.74], p<0.001). By multivariable analysis, TR access was an independent predictor of freedom from MACE and NACE at 30 days and one year.
In patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI with contemporary anticoagulation regimens in the HORIZONS-AMI trial, a TR compared with a TF approach was associated with reduced major bleeding and improved event-free survival.
我们旨在通过 HORIZONS-AMI 试验的事后分析,确定经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)治疗 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者中,与经股动脉(TF)入路相比,经桡动脉(TR)入路是否与改善临床结局相关。在接受直接 PCI 治疗的 STEMI 患者中,TR 入路与 TF 入路比较,同时使用当代抗凝方案的数据十分有限。
在 HORIZONS-AMI 试验中,3340 例 STEMI 患者接受了直接 PCI,分别采用 TR(n=200)或 TF 方法(n=3134)。终点包括 30 天和 1 年时的主要不良心血管事件(MACE:死亡、再梗死、卒中和靶血管血运重建)、非 CABG 相关大出血和净临床不良事件(NACE:MACE 或大出血)发生率。与 TF 入路相比,TR 入路显著降低了 30 天复合死亡或再梗死发生率(1.0%比 4.3%,OR 0.23,95%CI [0.06,0.94],p=0.02)、非 CABG 相关大出血发生率(3.5%比 7.6%,OR 0.45,95%CI [0.21,0.95],p=0.03)、MACE 发生率(2.0%比 5.6%,OR 0.35,95%CI [0.13,0.95],p=0.02)和 NACE 发生率(5.0%比 11.6%,OR 0.42,95%CI [0.22,0.78],p<0.01)。1 年时,TR 组的死亡或再梗死发生率仍显著降低(4.0%比 7.8%,OR 0.51,95%CI [0.25,1.02],p=0.05)、非 CABG 相关大出血发生率(3.5%比 8.1%,OR 0.42,95%CI [0.20,0.89],p=0.02)、MACE 发生率(6.0%比 12.4%,OR 0.47,95%CI [0.26,0.83],p<0.01)和 NACE 发生率(8.5%比 17.8%,OR 0.45,95%CI [0.28,0.74],p<0.001)。多变量分析显示,TR 入路是 30 天和 1 年时 MACE 和 NACE 无事件的独立预测因素。
在 HORIZONS-AMI 试验中,接受当代抗凝方案的 STEMI 患者接受直接 PCI 治疗时,与 TF 入路相比,TR 入路与减少大出血和改善无事件生存相关。