Suppr超能文献

急性冠状动脉综合征伴或不伴 ST 段抬高患者经桡动脉与股动脉入路的效果比较。

Effects of radial versus femoral artery access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation.

机构信息

McMaster University and Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 18;60(24):2490-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.050. Epub 2012 Oct 24.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the consistency of the effects of radial artery access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and in those with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS).

BACKGROUND

The safety associated with radial access may translate into mortality benefit in higher-risk patients, such as those with STEMI.

METHODS

We compared efficacy and bleeding outcomes in patients randomized to radial versus femoral access in RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention trial) (N = 7,021) separately in those with STEMI (n = 1,958) and NSTEACS (n = 5,063). Interaction tests between access site and acute coronary syndrome type were performed.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were well matched between radial and femoral groups. There were significant interactions for the primary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke/non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding (p = 0.025), the secondary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke (p = 0.011) and mortality (p = 0.001). In STEMI patients, radial access reduced the primary outcome compared with femoral access (3.1% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60; p = 0.026). For NSTEACS, the rates were 3.8% and 3.5%, respectively (p = 0.49). In STEMI patients, death/myocardial infarction/stroke were also reduced with radial access (2.7% vs. 4.6%; HR 0.59; p = 0.031), as was all-cause mortality (1.3% vs. 3.2%; HR: 0.39; p = 0.006), with no difference in NSTEACS patients. Operator radial experience was greater in STEMI versus NSTEACS patients (400 vs. 326 cases/year, p < 0.0001). In primary PCI, mortality was reduced with radial access (1.4% vs. 3.1%; HR: 0.46; p = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with STEMI, radial artery access reduced the primary outcome and mortality. No such benefit was observed in patients with NSTEACS. The radial approach may be preferred in STEMI patients when the operator has considerable radial experience. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273).

摘要

目的

本研究旨在确定桡动脉入路在 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者和非 ST 段抬高型急性冠脉综合征(NSTEACS)患者中的作用是否一致。

背景

桡动脉入路相关的安全性可能会转化为高危患者(如 STEMI 患者)的死亡率获益。

方法

我们比较了 RIVAL(经桡动脉与股动脉入路冠状动脉介入治疗试验)(N = 7021)中随机接受桡动脉与股动脉入路的患者在 STEMI(n = 1958)和 NSTEACS(n = 5063)患者中的疗效和出血结局,并进行了桡动脉入路和急性冠脉综合征类型之间的交互检验。

结果

桡动脉和股动脉组之间的基线特征匹配良好。主要终点(死亡/心肌梗死/卒中和非冠状动脉旁路移植相关大出血)(p = 0.025)、次要终点(死亡/心肌梗死/卒中和死亡率)(p = 0.011)和死亡率(p = 0.001)存在显著的交互作用。在 STEMI 患者中,与股动脉入路相比,桡动脉入路降低了主要终点事件的发生率(3.1% vs. 5.2%;风险比 [HR]:0.60;p = 0.026)。对于 NSTEACS,发生率分别为 3.8%和 3.5%(p = 0.49)。在 STEMI 患者中,桡动脉入路也降低了死亡/心肌梗死/卒中的发生率(2.7% vs. 4.6%;HR 0.59;p = 0.031)和全因死亡率(1.3% vs. 3.2%;HR:0.39;p = 0.006),而 NSTEACS 患者则无差异。STEMI 患者的术者桡动脉经验明显多于 NSTEACS 患者(400 例/年 vs. 326 例/年,p < 0.0001)。在直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中,桡动脉入路降低了死亡率(1.4% vs. 3.1%;HR:0.46;p = 0.041)。

结论

在 STEMI 患者中,桡动脉入路降低了主要结局和死亡率。在 NSTEACS 患者中,未观察到这种益处。当术者有丰富的桡动脉经验时,桡动脉入路可能更适用于 STEMI 患者。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验