Israeli Zeev, Lavi Shahar, Bertand Olivier F, Mamas Mamas A, Bagur Rodrigo
Interventional Cardiology Laboratories, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
Quebec Heart & Lung Institute, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
J Interv Cardiol. 2018 Apr;31(2):230-235. doi: 10.1111/joic.12486. Epub 2018 Jan 8.
The use of radial approach for coronary angiography, followed by same-day inter-facility transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not yet been evaluated.
We sought to assess the safety and feasibility of using the transradial as compared to the transfemoral approach in patients undergoing diagnostic angiogram with same-day transfer to a PCI facility.
Patients that underwent diagnostic coronary angiography between January 2011 and June 2017 in a referring facility, and were transferred for same-day PCI were included. Patients' demographics, as well as procedural data and in-hospital outcome, were collected.
Three hundred fifty-two participants were included. Of these, 36 (10.2%) patients received transradial access. Patients in the transradial group were older (68 ± 10 vs 62 ± 12 years, P = 0.007), and received a significantly higher total dose of heparin including both, diagnostic and PCI procedures (5935 ± 1865 vs 10029 ± 2771 units, P < 0.001). None of the transradial patients experienced bleeding or access-related complications. In the transfemoral group, 9 (3%) vascular-access complications were recorded. Contrast volume was lower for transradial patients (177 ± 47 vs 216 ± 75 mL, P < 0.001). A higher proportion of outpatients were discharged from the PCI-center the same day after transradial procedures (53% vs 1.3%, P < 0.001).
Transradial access for inter-facility transfer for PCI after diagnostic angiogram appears safe and feasible, without increasing the risk for ischemic hand complications. Transradial access was associated with fewer bleeding and vascular access-site complications, and with a higher likelihood for a same-day discharge home in outpatients.
冠状动脉造影采用桡动脉入路,随后当日进行机构间转运以行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI),这一方法尚未得到评估。
我们试图评估在当日转至PCI机构进行诊断性血管造影的患者中,与经股动脉入路相比,采用经桡动脉入路的安全性和可行性。
纳入2011年1月至2017年6月在转诊机构接受诊断性冠状动脉造影并当日转至他处行PCI的患者。收集患者的人口统计学资料、手术数据及住院结局。
共纳入352名参与者。其中,36名(10.2%)患者采用经桡动脉入路。经桡动脉组患者年龄较大(68±10岁 vs 62±12岁,P = 0.007),在诊断和PCI手术中接受的肝素总剂量显著更高(5935±1865单位 vs 10029±2771单位,P < 0.001)。经桡动脉入路的患者均未发生出血或与入路相关的并发症。在经股动脉组,记录到9例(3%)血管入路并发症。经桡动脉入路患者的造影剂用量较低(177±47 mL vs 216±75 mL,P < 0.001)。经桡动脉手术后当日从PCI中心出院的门诊患者比例更高(53% vs 1.3%,P < 0.001)。
诊断性血管造影后经桡动脉入路进行机构间转运以行PCI似乎安全可行,且不会增加缺血性手部并发症的风险。经桡动脉入路与更少的出血和血管入路部位并发症相关,且门诊患者当日出院回家的可能性更高。