Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Centre for Prognosis Research, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.
Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Centre for Prognosis Research, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Jun 11;11(11):1021-1033. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.252. Epub 2018 May 16.
The authors sought to determine the relationships between left radial access (LRA) or right radial access (RRA) and clinical outcomes using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) database.
LRA has been shown to offer procedural advantages over RRA in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) although few data exist from a national perspective around its use and association with clinical outcomes.
The authors investigated the relationship between use of LRA or RRA and clinical outcomes of in-hospital or 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), in-hospital stroke, and major bleeding complications in patients undergoing PCI between 2007 and 2014.
Of 342,806 cases identified, 328,495 (96%) were RRA and 14,311 (4%) were LRA. Use of LRA increased from 3.2% to 4.6% from 2007 to 2014. In patients undergoing a repeat PCI procedure, the use of RRA dropped to 72% at the second procedure and was even lower in females (65%) and patients >75 years of age (70%). Use of LRA (compared with RRA) was not associated with significant differences in in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.57; p = 0.20), 30-day mortality (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.74; p = 0.16), MACE (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.32; p = 0.56), or major bleeding (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.77; p = 0.24). In propensity match analysis, LRA was associated with a significant decrease in in-hospital stroke (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.82; p = 0.005).
In this large PCI database, use of LRA is limited compared with RRA but conveys no increased risk of adverse outcomes, but may be associated with a reduction in PCI-related stroke complications.
作者试图利用英国心血管介入学会(BCIS)数据库确定左桡动脉(LRA)或右桡动脉(RRA)入路与临床结局之间的关系。
尽管从全国范围来看,LRA 在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中的使用及其与临床结局的关联数据有限,但已证明 LRA 在 PCI 中较 RRA 具有操作优势。
作者研究了 2007 年至 2014 年期间接受 PCI 治疗的患者中,LRA 或 RRA 的使用与住院或 30 天死亡率、主要不良心血管事件(MACE)、住院期间卒中以及大出血并发症等临床结局之间的关系。
在确定的 342806 例病例中,328495 例(96%)为 RRA,14311 例(4%)为 LRA。2007 年至 2014 年,LRA 的使用率从 3.2%上升至 4.6%。在接受重复 PCI 手术的患者中,第二次手术时 RRA 的使用率降至 72%,女性(65%)和>75 岁的患者(70%)的使用率更低。与 RRA 相比,LRA 的使用与住院死亡率(比值比[OR]:1.19,95%置信区间[CI]:0.90 至 1.57;p=0.20)、30 天死亡率(OR:1.17,95%CI:0.93 至 1.74;p=0.16)、MACE(OR:1.06,95%CI:0.86 至 1.32;p=0.56)或大出血(OR:1.22,95%CI:0.87 至 1.77;p=0.24)的差异无统计学意义。在倾向评分匹配分析中,LRA 与住院期间卒中风险显著降低相关(OR:0.52,95%CI:0.37 至 0.82;p=0.005)。
在这项大型 PCI 数据库中,与 RRA 相比,LRA 的使用率较低,但不会增加不良结局的风险,但可能与 PCI 相关的卒中并发症减少相关。