Wimmer Neil J, Secemsky Eric A, Mauri Laura, Roe Matthew T, Saha-Chaudhuri Paramita, Dai David, McCabe James M, Resnic Frederic S, Gurm Hitinder S, Yeh Robert W
From the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE (N.J.W.); Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (E.A.S.); Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA (L.M.); Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (M.T.R., D.D.); Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, CA (P.S.-C.); Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle (J.M.M.); Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Lahey Clinic, Burlington, MA (F.S.R.); Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (H.S.G.); and Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA (R.W.Y.).
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Apr;9(4):e003464. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003464.
Bleeding is associated with poor outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although arterial closure devices (ACDs) are widely used in clinical practice, whether they are effective in reducing bleeding complications during transfemoral PCI is uncertain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of ACDs for the prevention of vascular access site complications in patients undergoing transfemoral PCI using an instrumental variable approach.
We performed a retrospective analysis of the CathPCI Registry from 2009 to 2013 at 1470 sites across the United States. Variation in the proportion of ACDs used by each individual physician operator was used as an instrumental variable to address potential confounding. A 2-stage instrumental variable analysis was used as the primary approach. The main outcome measure was vascular access site complications, and nonaccess site bleeding was used as a falsification end point (negative control) to evaluate for potential confounding. A total of 1 053 155 ACDs were used during 2 056 585 PCIs during the study period. The vascular access site complication rate was 1.5%. In the instrumental variable analysis, the use of ACDs was associated with a 0.40% absolute risk reduction in vascular access site complications (95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.42; number needed to treat=250). Absolute differences in nonaccess site bleeding were negligible (risk difference, 0.04%; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.07), suggesting acceptable control of confounding in the comparison.
ACDs are associated with a modest reduction in major bleeding after PCI. The number needed to treat with ACDs to prevent 1 major bleeding event is high.
出血与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后的不良预后相关。尽管动脉闭合装置(ACD)在临床实践中广泛应用,但它们在减少经股动脉PCI期间出血并发症方面是否有效尚不确定。本研究的目的是使用工具变量法评估ACD在预防经股动脉PCI患者血管入路部位并发症中的有效性。
我们对2009年至2013年美国1470个地点的CathPCI注册研究进行了回顾性分析。将每位医生操作者使用ACD的比例差异用作工具变量以解决潜在的混杂因素。采用两阶段工具变量分析作为主要方法。主要结局指标是血管入路部位并发症,非入路部位出血用作检验性终点(阴性对照)以评估潜在的混杂因素。在研究期间的2056585例PCI中,共使用了1053155个ACD。血管入路部位并发症发生率为1.5%。在工具变量分析中,使用ACD与血管入路部位并发症的绝对风险降低0.40%相关(95%置信区间,0.31 - 0.42;需治疗人数 = 250)。非入路部位出血的绝对差异可忽略不计(风险差异,0.04%;95%置信区间,0.01 - 0.07),表明在比较中混杂因素得到了可接受的控制。
ACD与PCI后大出血的适度减少相关。使用ACD预防1例大出血事件的需治疗人数较高。