• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中入路选择对神经并发症发生率的影响。

Influence of access site choice on incidence of neurologic complications after percutaneous coronary intervention.

机构信息

University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.

出版信息

Am Heart J. 2013 Mar;165(3):317-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.10.015. Epub 2012 Dec 22.

DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2012.10.015
PMID:23453099
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Neurologic complications (NCs) are a rare but potentially devastating complication that may follow percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In recent years, there has been an increase in use of transradial access, driven by a developing body of evidence that favors its use over femoral access. Concerns have been raised, however, that transradial access may increase the risk of NC compared with transfemoral access. We aimed to investigate the influence of access site selection on the occurrence of NCs through a period of transition during which transradial access became the dominant route for PCI procedures performed in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database between January 2006 and December 2010. The data were split into 2 cohorts based on access site. An NC was defined as a periprocedural ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack occurring before hospital discharge. Binary logistic multivariate analysis was used to investigate the influence of access site utilization on NCs and adjust for measured confounding factors.

RESULTS

Between 2006 and 2010, the use of radial access increased from 17.2% to 50.8% of all PCI procedures. A total of 124,616 radial procedures and 223,476 femoral procedures were studied with a NC rate of 0.11% in each cohort. In univariate (odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.24, P = .93) and multivariate analysis (odds ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.23, P = .91), there was no significant association between the use of radial access and the occurrence of NCs.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that radial access is not associated with an increased risk of clinically detected NCs, even during a period when there was a rapid evolution in the preferred access site for PCI in the United Kingdom. These are reassuring results, particularly for operators embarking on a change to radial access for PCI.

摘要

背景

神经并发症(NCs)是一种罕见但可能具有破坏性的并发症,可能会在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后发生。近年来,由于越来越多的证据表明经桡动脉入路优于股动脉入路,经桡动脉入路的使用有所增加。然而,人们担心与股动脉入路相比,经桡动脉入路可能会增加 NC 的风险。我们旨在通过经桡动脉入路成为英国进行的 PCI 手术主要途径的过渡期,研究入路选择对 NC 发生的影响。

方法

我们对 2006 年 1 月至 2010 年 12 月期间英国心血管介入学会数据库进行了回顾性分析。根据入路将数据分为 2 组。NC 定义为住院前发生的围手术期缺血性卒中、出血性卒中和短暂性脑缺血发作。采用二元逻辑多变量分析研究入路利用对 NC 的影响,并调整测量的混杂因素。

结果

2006 年至 2010 年间,桡动脉入路使用率从所有 PCI 手术的 17.2%增加到 50.8%。共研究了 124616 例桡动脉手术和 223476 例股动脉手术,两组的 NC 发生率分别为 0.11%。在单变量(比值比 1.01,95%CI 0.82-1.24,P =.93)和多变量分析(比值比 0.99,95%CI 0.79-1.23,P =.91)中,桡动脉入路的使用与 NC 的发生之间均无显著关联。

结论

这些结果表明,即使在英国 PCI 首选入路迅速演变的时期,桡动脉入路也不会增加临床检测到的 NC 的风险。这些结果令人安心,特别是对于开始进行桡动脉入路 PCI 的操作者。

相似文献

1
Influence of access site choice on incidence of neurologic complications after percutaneous coronary intervention.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中入路选择对神经并发症发生率的影响。
Am Heart J. 2013 Mar;165(3):317-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.10.015. Epub 2012 Dec 22.
2
Adoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007-2012).经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中桡动脉入路的采用和与股动脉入路的结果比较:国家心血管数据登记处(2007-2012 年)的最新报告。
Circulation. 2013 Jun 11;127(23):2295-306. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000536.
3
Comparison of costs between transradial and transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention: a cohort analysis from the Premier research database.经桡动脉与经股动脉经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的成本比较:来自 Premier 研究数据库的队列分析。
Am Heart J. 2013 Mar;165(3):303-9.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.10.004. Epub 2012 Nov 15.
4
Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock: a single-center experience.经桡动脉入路行冠状动脉介入术治疗心原性休克:单中心经验
Am Heart J. 2013 Mar;165(3):280-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.08.011.
5
Radial versus femoral approach comparison in percutaneous coronary intervention with intraaortic balloon pump support: the RADIAL PUMP UP registry.径向入路与股动脉入路在带主动脉内球囊反搏支持的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的比较:RADIAL PUMP UP 注册研究。
Am Heart J. 2013 Dec;166(6):1019-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.09.009. Epub 2013 Oct 10.
6
Full conversion from transfemoral to transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions results in a similar success rate and a rapid reduction of in-hospital cardiac and vascular major events.经股动脉入路完全转为经桡动脉入路行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗可获得相似的成功率,并可迅速减少住院期间心脏和血管主要不良事件。
EuroIntervention. 2013 Jul;9(3):345-52. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9I3A56.
7
Access site-related complications after transradial catheterization can be reduced with smaller sheath size and statins.经桡动脉导管插入术后与穿刺部位相关的并发症可以通过使用更小尺寸的鞘管和他汀类药物来减少。
Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2012 Sep;27(3):174-80. doi: 10.1007/s12928-012-0108-1. Epub 2012 Jun 6.
8
Comparison of 3-year clinical outcomes after transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention.经桡动脉与经股动脉经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后3年临床结局的比较。
Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2012 May;27(2):84-92. doi: 10.1007/s12928-012-0098-z. Epub 2012 Feb 28.
9
Transitioning to the radial artery as the preferred access site for cardiac catheterization: an academic medical center experience.从股动脉向桡动脉过渡作为心脏导管插入术的首选入路:一家学术医疗中心的经验。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Aug 1;80(2):247-57. doi: 10.1002/ccd.23387. Epub 2011 Dec 12.
10
Risk score, causes, and clinical impact of failure of transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中经桡动脉入路失败的风险评分、原因和临床影响。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Nov;6(11):1129-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.05.019. Epub 2013 Oct 16.

引用本文的文献

1
Application and Validation of a transRADial Access Score (RAD-Access) in Patient Selection for Safe Radial Access in Liver Cancer Intra-Arterial Procedures.经桡动脉入路评分(RAD-Access)在肝癌动脉内介入治疗安全桡动脉入路患者选择中的应用与验证
Cancers (Basel). 2025 Apr 22;17(9):1385. doi: 10.3390/cancers17091385.
2
Most common misconceptions about transradial approach in interventional radiology: results from an international survey.介入放射学中经桡动脉途径最常见的误解:一项国际调查的结果
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2021 Sep;27(5):649-653. doi: 10.5152/dir.2021.20256.
3
Trans-Carotid and Trans-Radial Access for Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
经颈动脉和经桡动脉途径用于急性缺血性卒中机械取栓术:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Cureus. 2020 Jun 28;12(6):e8875. doi: 10.7759/cureus.8875.
4
Cerebrovascular Complications After Upper Extremity Access for Complex Aortic Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.复杂性主动脉介入治疗后上肢入路相关的脑血管并发症:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020 Feb;43(2):186-195. doi: 10.1007/s00270-019-02330-6. Epub 2019 Oct 7.
5
Prospective Study on the Incidence of Cerebrovascular Disease After Coronary Angiography.冠状动脉造影术后脑血管病发病的前瞻性研究。
J Atheroscler Thromb. 2018 Mar 1;25(3):224-232. doi: 10.5551/jat.41012. Epub 2017 Aug 30.
6
Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.经桡动脉介入术后桡动脉闭塞:一项系统评价和Meta分析
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jan 25;5(1):e002686. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.002686.
7
Almanac 2013: acute coronary syndromes.2013 年日历:急性冠脉综合征。
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2014 Mar;126(5-6):176-83. doi: 10.1007/s00508-014-0526-4.