Suppr超能文献

经桡动脉与经股动脉途径用于主髂动脉及股腘动脉介入治疗的比较:单中心经验

Comparison of Transradial vs Transfemoral Access for Aortoiliac and Femoropopliteal Interventions: A Single-Center Experience.

作者信息

Roy Andrew K, Garot Phillipe, Louvard Yves, Neylon Antoinette, Spaziano Marco, Sawaya Fadi J, Fernandez Leticia, Roux Yann, Blanc Raphael, Piotin Michel, Champagne Stephane, Tavolaro Oscar, Benamer Hakim, Hovasse Thomas, Chevalier Bernard, Lefèvre Thierry, Unterseeh Thierry

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Ramsay Générale de Santé, Institut Cardiovasculaire Paris-Sud, Hôpital Privé Jacques Cartier, Massy, France.

Hôpital Claude-Galien, Quincy Sous-Sénart, France.

出版信息

J Endovasc Ther. 2016 Dec;23(6):880-888. doi: 10.1177/1526602816665617. Epub 2016 Aug 24.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the procedure and safety outcomes of the transradial approach (TRA) with the femoral approach (FA) for treating aortoiliac and femoropopliteal stenoses and occlusions.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study was conducted involving 188 patients (mean age 66.4±10.8 years; 116 men) with lower limb claudication or critical limb ischemia who underwent aortoiliac (131, 62.4%) or femoropopliteal (79, 37.6%) interventions on 210 lesions over a 3-year period. Operator discretion determined TRA suitability; exclusions included Raynaud's disease, upper limb occlusive disease, previous TRA difficulties, or planned hemodialysis. Lesion characteristics, clinical endpoints, and access site complications were compared.

RESULTS

FA was used primarily in 123 patients and the TRA (12 left and 53 right radial arteries) in 65 procedures. Eleven (16.9%) TRAs failed vs 9 (7.3%) FAs (p=0.42). Crossover to FA was due to occlusive lesions requiring alternative equipment in 9 cases and to tortuosity of the aortic arch vessels in 2 patients. The 134 FA interventions (balloon angioplasty, stents) were retrograde (112, 83.6%) or antegrade (22, 16.4%). There were significantly more TASC C/D lesions in the FA group (p=0.02). Sheath sizes (5-F to 8-F) did not differ between groups, and no significant differences were found between FA vs TRA in terms of procedure time (50.0±28.9 vs 46.8±25.1 minutes, p=0.50) or length of stay (2.2±0.6 vs 2.1±0.3 days, p=0.24). While there were no strokes, access site complications occurred in 6.0% of the FA patients vs 3.7% of the TRA patients (p=0.12).

CONCLUSION

The transradial approach for aortoiliac and femoropopliteal interventions is safe and efficacious compared with the transfemoral approach for a range of lesion subtypes. Nevertheless, there remains a need for improvements in peripheral device and catheter technology to decrease transradial failure rates.

摘要

目的

比较经桡动脉入路(TRA)与经股动脉入路(FA)治疗主髂动脉和股腘动脉狭窄及闭塞的操作过程和安全性结果。

方法

进行一项单中心回顾性研究,纳入188例(平均年龄66.4±10.8岁;男性116例)有下肢间歇性跛行或严重肢体缺血的患者,他们在3年期间对210处病变进行了主髂动脉(131处,62.4%)或股腘动脉(79处,37.6%)干预。由术者判断TRA的适用性;排除标准包括雷诺病、上肢闭塞性疾病、既往TRA困难或计划进行血液透析。比较病变特征、临床终点和穿刺部位并发症。

结果

123例患者主要采用FA,65例手术采用TRA(12例左桡动脉和53例右桡动脉)。11例(16.9%)TRA失败,而FA为9例(7.3%)(p = 0.42)。转为FA的原因是闭塞性病变需要使用其他设备的有9例,以及主动脉弓血管迂曲的有2例。134例FA干预(球囊血管成形术、支架置入)为逆行(112例,83.6%)或顺行(22例,16.4%)。FA组TASC C/D级病变明显更多(p = 0.02)。两组鞘管尺寸(5-F至8-F)无差异,FA与TRA在手术时间(50.0±28.9对46.8±25.1分钟,p = 0.50)或住院时间(2.2±0.6对2.1±0.3天,p = 0.24)方面也无显著差异。虽然没有发生卒中,但FA患者穿刺部位并发症发生率为6.0%,而TRA患者为3.7%(p = 0.12)。

结论

与经股动脉入路相比,经桡动脉入路治疗主髂动脉和股腘动脉病变对于一系列病变亚型是安全有效的。然而,仍需要改进外周设备和导管技术以降低经桡动脉入路的失败率。

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