Suppr超能文献

经桡动脉或股动脉入路行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI):选择重要吗?

Radial or femoral access in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): Does the choice matters?

机构信息

National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD), Karachi, Pakistan.

National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD), Karachi, Pakistan.

出版信息

Indian Heart J. 2020 May-Jun;72(3):166-171. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2020.05.004. Epub 2020 May 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted with the aim of providing a quantitative appraisal of clinical outcomes of trans-radial access for primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with ST-segment evaluation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

In this study, we compared two propensity-matched cohorts of patients who underwent primary PCI via trans-radial (TRA) and trans-femoral access (TFA) in a 1:1 ratio. The profile of two cohorts was matched for gender, age, and body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, family history, and smoking. The outcomes of primary PCI were compared for the two cohorts which included all-cause in-hospital mortality, heart failure, re-infarction, cardiogenic shock, bleeding, transfusion, cerebrovascular accident, and dialysis.

RESULTS

This analysis was performed on a total of 2316 patients with 1158 patients each in the TRA and TFA group. We observed significantly lower rates of mortality, 0.8% (9) vs. 3.5% (41); p < 0.001 and bleeding, 0.5% (6) vs.1.6% (19); p = 0.009 with shorter hospital stay, 1.61 ± 1.39 vs. 1.98 ± 1.5 days, in trans-radial vs. trans-femoral. However, both fluoroscopic time and contrast volume were significantly higher in the TRA as compared to TFA group 15.57 ± 8.16 vs. 12.79 ± 7.82 min; p < 0.001 and 143.22 ± 45.33 vs. 133.78 ± 45.97; p < 0.001 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TFA access, TRA for primary PCI is safe for patients with STEMI, it was found to be associated with a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality and bleeding complications.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在定量评估经桡动脉(TRA)和经股动脉(TFA)入路行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)治疗 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者的临床结局。

方法

本研究比较了两组 1:1 比例的患者,这些患者分别通过 TRA 和 TFA 行直接 PCI。两组患者的特征匹配性别、年龄和体重指数、糖尿病、高血压、家族史和吸烟。比较两组患者的直接 PCI 结局,包括全因住院死亡率、心力衰竭、再梗死、心源性休克、出血、输血、脑血管意外和透析。

结果

共对 2316 例患者进行了分析,TRA 和 TFA 组各 1158 例。我们观察到 TRA 组死亡率显著降低,0.8%(9 例)比 3.5%(41 例);p<0.001 和出血显著降低,0.5%(6 例)比 1.6%(19 例);p=0.009 TRA 组住院时间更短,1.61±1.39 天比 1.98±1.5 天。然而,TRA 组的透视时间和造影剂用量均显著高于 TFA 组,分别为 15.57±8.16 分钟比 12.79±7.82 分钟;p<0.001 和 143.22±45.33 毫升比 133.78±45.97 毫升;p<0.001。

结论

与 TFA 入路相比,TRA 用于直接 PCI 治疗 STEMI 患者是安全的,它与住院死亡率和出血并发症显著降低相关。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验