文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
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
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
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 @ 2025

一项基于注册的随机临床试验比较了女性行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗时桡动脉和股动脉入路:SAFE-PCI for Women(女性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗入路增强研究)试验。

A registry-based randomized trial comparing radial and femoral approaches in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SAFE-PCI for Women (Study of Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women) trial.

机构信息

The Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.

The Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.

出版信息

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Aug;7(8):857-67. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.04.007.


DOI:10.1016/j.jcin.2014.04.007
PMID:25147030
Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the effect of radial access on outcomes in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using a registry-based randomized trial. BACKGROUND: Women are at increased risk of bleeding and vascular complications after PCI. The role of radial access in women is unclear. METHODS: Women undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI were randomized to radial or femoral arterial access. Data from the CathPCI Registry and trial-specific data were merged into a final study database. The primary efficacy endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding or vascular complications requiring intervention. The primary feasibility endpoint was access site crossover. The primary analysis cohort was the subgroup undergoing PCI; sensitivity analyses were conducted in the total randomized population. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for a lower than expected event rate. A total of 1,787 women (691 undergoing PCI) were randomized at 60 sites. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint between radial or femoral access among women undergoing PCI (radial 1.2% vs. 2.9% femoral, odds ratio [OR]: 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12 to 1.27); among women undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI, radial access significantly reduced bleeding and vascular complications (0.6% vs. 1.7%; OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90). Access site crossover was significantly higher among women assigned to radial access (PCI cohort: 6.1% vs. 1.7%; OR: 3.65; 95% CI: 1.45 to 9.17); total randomized cohort: (6.7% vs. 1.9%; OR: 3.70; 95% CI: 2.14 to 6.40). More women preferred radial access. CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial, which was terminated early, the radial approach did not significantly reduce bleeding or vascular complications in women undergoing PCI. Access site crossover occurred more often in women assigned to radial access. (SAFE-PCI for Women; NCT01406236).

摘要

目的:本研究旨在通过基于注册的随机试验,确定经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中桡动脉入路对女性结局的影响。

背景:女性在 PCI 后出血和血管并发症的风险增加。桡动脉入路在女性中的作用尚不清楚。

方法:接受心导管检查或 PCI 的女性被随机分配至桡动脉或股动脉入路。将 CathPCI 注册研究和试验特异性数据合并到最终研究数据库中。主要疗效终点为 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 类型 2、3 或 5 出血或需要干预的血管并发症。主要可行性终点为入路部位转换。主要分析队列为接受 PCI 的亚组;在总随机人群中进行了敏感性分析。

结果:由于预期事件发生率较低,试验提前停止。共有 1787 名女性(691 名接受 PCI)在 60 个中心接受随机分组。接受 PCI 的女性中桡动脉或股动脉入路在主要疗效终点方面无显著差异(桡动脉 1.2% vs. 股动脉 2.9%,优势比 [OR]:0.39;95%置信区间 [CI]:0.12 至 1.27);在心导管检查或 PCI 的女性中,桡动脉入路可显著减少出血和血管并发症(0.6% vs. 1.7%;OR:0.32;95%CI:0.12 至 0.90)。被分配至桡动脉入路的女性入路部位转换显著更高(PCI 队列:6.1% vs. 1.7%;OR:3.65;95%CI:1.45 至 9.17);总随机队列:(6.7% vs. 1.9%;OR:3.70;95%CI:2.14 至 6.40)。更多的女性更喜欢桡动脉入路。

结论:在这项提前终止的实用试验中,桡动脉入路并未显著降低接受 PCI 的女性的出血或血管并发症发生率。被分配至桡动脉入路的女性入路部位转换更常见。(SAFE-PCI for Women;NCT01406236)。

相似文献

[1]
A registry-based randomized trial comparing radial and femoral approaches in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SAFE-PCI for Women (Study of Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women) trial.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014-8

[2]
Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013-8

[3]
Comparison of Rates of Bleeding and Vascular Complications Before, During, and After Trial Enrollment in the SAFE-PCI Trial for Women.

Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019-5

[4]
Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography/Intervention in Women With Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the RIVAL Trial (Radial Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention).

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015-4-20

[5]
Radial PCI and the obesity paradox: Insights from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2).

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016-2-1

[6]
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).

Circulation. 2013-6-11

[7]
ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial.

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013-11-21

[8]
Safety of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via the radial versus femoral route in patients on uninterrupted oral anticoagulation with warfarin.

Am Heart J. 2014-10

[9]
Influence of arterial access site selection on outcomes in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: are the results of randomized trials achievable in clinical practice?

JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013-6-14

[10]
Patients undergoing PCI from the femoral route by default radial operators are at high risk of vascular access-site complications.

EuroIntervention. 2014-2

引用本文的文献

[1]
Role of Femoral Artery Access Characteristics and Female Sex in In-Hospital Complications for Patients Undergoing Recanalization of Chronic Total Occlusions.

J Clin Med. 2025-6-25

[2]
Leveraging existing infrastructure to answer clinically important questions in trauma: registry-based randomized clinical trials.

Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2025-3-31

[3]
Sex-based Differences in Complications Following Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2025-2-17

[4]
Use cases of registry-based randomized controlled trials-A review of the registries' contributions and constraints.

Clin Transl Sci. 2024-11

[5]
Sex Differences in Patients Undergoing Left Main Stem Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina: Data From a National Registry.

J Am Heart Assoc. 2024-11-19

[6]
A NSQIP-Based Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating Choice of Prophylactic Antibiotics for Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Cancer Treat Res. 2024

[7]
SCAI Expert Consensus Statement on Sex-Specific Considerations in Myocardial Revascularization.

J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2022-2-3

[8]
Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer-Coated Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: Patient-Level Pooled Analysis From Two Indian Registries.

Cureus. 2023-7-11

[9]
Sex-Related Bleeding Risk in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy with Aspirin and a P2Y12 Inhibitor.

Med Princ Pract. 2023

[10]
"Nothing to lose and the possibility of gaining": a qualitative study on the feasibility and acceptability of registry-based randomised controlled trials among cancer patients and clinicians.

Trials. 2023-2-7

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

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索