Suppr超能文献

经桡动脉和股动脉入路行诊断性冠状动脉造影术:LEARN-Cardiogroup II 前瞻性多中心研究。

Radial and femoral access for interventional fellows performing diagnostic coronary angiographies: the LEARN-Cardiogroup II, a prospective multicenter study.

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Città della Salute e della Scienza.

Division of Cardiology, 'AOU San Luigi e Centro di Emodinamica unità interaziendale', San Luigi- Rivoli, Italy.

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2018 Nov;19(11):650-654. doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000716.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Safety and efficacy of radial and femoral access for coronary angiography performed by cardiology fellows remain to be evaluated.

METHODS

In this multicenter prospective study, cardiology fellows selected the access site (among femoral, right and left radial artery) for coronary angiography. All bleeding events related to the access site and all complications (a composite of all bleedings and artery occlusion) were the co-primary safety end points. Success for each access site, procedural and radiological times and single components of primary outcome were the secondary ones.

RESULTS

Overall, 201 patients were enrolled. Fellows chose right radial, left radial or femoral access in 164 (82%), 20 (10%) and 17 (8%) cases, respectively. All-cause bleedings were lower in radial cohort (4 vs. 19%; P = 0.001) mainly driven by minor bleedings (4 vs. 18%, P = 0.012). Also, overall complications were less frequent with the radial approach (18 vs. 30%, P = 0.03) and radial artery occlusion did not differ between right vs. left side (4 vs. 5%, P = 0.76). Procedural time (minutes) was similar between radial and femoral site (23 ± 9 vs. 22 ± 10, P = 0.91), as well as time of X-ray exposure (6 ± 3 vs. 4 ± 2, P = 0.11), DAP (Gy/cm: 17 ± 11 vs. 18 ± 12, P = 0.74) and amount of contrast medium (ml: 106 ± 81 vs. 84 ± 43, P = 0.89). Success for access was significantly higher with radial artery (89 vs. 71%, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Radial artery is the most exploited access by cardiologist fellows, leading to reduction in minor bleedings and higher success compared with femoral access. No differences in procedural time and radiation exposures were recorded.

摘要

背景

由心脏病学研究员进行的冠状动脉造影的桡动脉和股动脉入路的安全性和疗效仍有待评估。

方法

在这项多中心前瞻性研究中,心脏病学研究员选择了冠状动脉造影的入路部位(股动脉、右桡动脉和左桡动脉)。所有与入路部位相关的出血事件和所有并发症(所有出血和动脉闭塞的综合)均为共同的主要安全性终点。每个入路部位的成功率、手术和放射学时间以及主要结局的单一组成部分为次要终点。

结果

共有 201 例患者入组。研究员分别在 164 例(82%)、20 例(10%)和 17 例(8%)患者中选择了右桡动脉、左桡动脉或股动脉入路。桡动脉组的全因出血较少(4%比 19%;P=0.001),主要是轻微出血(4%比 18%,P=0.012)。此外,桡动脉入路的总并发症发生率较低(18%比 30%,P=0.03),右侧与左侧桡动脉闭塞率无差异(4%比 5%,P=0.76)。桡动脉与股动脉部位的手术时间(分钟)相似(23±9 比 22±10,P=0.91),X 射线暴露时间(6±3 比 4±2,P=0.11)、剂量面积乘积(Gy/cm:17±11 比 18±12,P=0.74)和造影剂用量(ml:106±81 比 84±43,P=0.89)也相似。桡动脉入路的成功率明显高于股动脉(89%比 71%,P=0.004)。

结论

桡动脉是心脏病学研究员最常使用的入路,与股动脉入路相比,桡动脉入路可减少轻微出血并提高成功率。手术时间和辐射暴露无差异。

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