• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

经桡动脉与经股动脉入路行左主干经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的长期临床结局。

Long-term clinical outcomes in transradial versus transfemoral access for left main percutaneous coronary intervention.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Coronary Heart Disease Center, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.

Catheterization Laboratories, Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 May 1;97 Suppl 2:1009-1015. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29586. Epub 2021 Mar 10.

DOI:10.1002/ccd.29586
PMID:33689212
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The present study compared 10-year clinical outcomes between transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) for left main (LM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding the long-term safety and efficacy of TRA for LM PCI.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients who underwent unprotected LM PCI between January 2004 and December 2008 at Fu Wai Hospital. The exclusion criteria were age of less than 18 years and presentation with acute myocardial infarction. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), which was defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and any revascularization at the 10-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 913 eligible patients, TRA was used for 417 patients (45.7%) and TFA was used for 496 patients (54.3%). The 30-day clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. Results from the 10-year follow-up revealed that MACCE occurred in 180 patients (46.7%) from the TRA group and in 239 patients (51.2%) from the TFA group (log-rank p = .3). The TRA and TFA groups also had low and comparable cumulative rates of all-cause death (14.6% vs. 17.3%, log-rank p = .56) and cardiac death (7.9% vs. 9.1%, log-rank p = .7).

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed no significant differences in long-term clinical outcomes when TRA or TFA were used for LM PCI.

摘要

目的

本研究比较了经桡动脉入路(TRA)和经股动脉入路(TFA)行左主干(LM)经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的 10 年临床结果。

背景

关于 TRA 行 LM PCI 的长期安全性和有效性的数据有限。

方法

本回顾性研究评估了 2004 年 1 月至 2008 年 12 月期间在北京阜外医院行非保护 LM PCI 的连续患者。排除标准为年龄小于 18 岁和急性心肌梗死。主要终点是主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE),定义为全因死亡、心肌梗死、卒中和 10 年随访时任何血运重建的复合事件。

结果

在 913 例符合条件的患者中,417 例(45.7%)采用 TRA,496 例(54.3%)采用 TFA。两组 30 天临床结果相似。10 年随访结果显示,TRA 组发生 MACCE 的患者有 180 例(46.7%),TFA 组有 239 例(51.2%)(log-rank p =.3)。TRA 组和 TFA 组的全因死亡率(14.6%比 17.3%,log-rank p =.56)和心脏死亡率(7.9%比 9.1%,log-rank p =.7)也较低且相似。

结论

本研究表明,TRA 或 TFA 行 LM PCI 的长期临床结果无显著差异。

相似文献

1
Long-term clinical outcomes in transradial versus transfemoral access for left main percutaneous coronary intervention.经桡动脉与经股动脉入路行左主干经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的长期临床结局。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 May 1;97 Suppl 2:1009-1015. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29586. Epub 2021 Mar 10.
2
Left main percutaneous coronary intervention-Radial versus femoral access: A systematic analysis.左主干经皮冠状动脉介入治疗-桡动脉与股动脉入路:系统分析。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jun 1;95(7):E201-E213. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28451. Epub 2019 Aug 20.
3
Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.经桡动脉与经股动脉途径用于无保护左主干冠状动脉狭窄的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019 Sep;20(9):790-798. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.10.025. Epub 2018 Nov 3.
4
Radial versus femoral access for left main percutaneous coronary intervention: An analysis from the Veterans Affairs Clinical, Reporting, and Tracking Program.经股动脉与桡动脉入路行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗左主干病变:来自退伍军人事务部临床、报告和跟踪项目的分析。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Feb;99(2):480-488. doi: 10.1002/ccd.30024. Epub 2021 Nov 30.
5
Full conversion from transfemoral to transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions results in a similar success rate and a rapid reduction of in-hospital cardiac and vascular major events.经股动脉入路完全转为经桡动脉入路行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗可获得相似的成功率,并可迅速减少住院期间心脏和血管主要不良事件。
EuroIntervention. 2013 Jul;9(3):345-52. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9I3A56.
6
Influence of arterial access site selection on outcomes in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: are the results of randomized trials achievable in clinical practice?经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中动脉入路选择对结果的影响:随机临床试验的结果能否在临床实践中实现?
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Jul;6(7):698-706. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.03.011. Epub 2013 Jun 14.
7
Radial versus femoral artery access in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease: analysis from the EXCEL trial.左主干病变经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中桡动脉与股动脉入路的比较:EXCEL 试验分析。
EuroIntervention. 2018 Nov 20;14(10):1104-1111. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00711.
8
Is percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary artery via transradial approach feasible for skilled transfemoral operators? Initial experience in an unselected population.对于熟练的经股动脉操作者而言,经桡动脉途径行无保护左主干冠状动脉介入治疗是否可行?未选择人群的初步经验。
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2013 Jul-Aug;14(4):193-6. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2013.04.007. Epub 2013 Jun 13.
9
Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent.经桡动脉入路与经股动脉入路在第二代药物洗脱支架分叉经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的应用比较。
J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Mar 18;39(10):e111. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e111.
10
Comparison of the transradial and transfemoral approach in treatment of chronic total occlusions with similar lesion characteristics.经桡动脉与经股动脉途径治疗具有相似病变特征的慢性完全闭塞病变的比较。
Anatol J Cardiol. 2018 May;19(5):319-325. doi: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2018.02779.

引用本文的文献

1
Sex and age-specific 10-year mortality after coronary stenting: an analysis of two randomized trials.冠状动脉支架置入术后特定性别和年龄的10年死亡率:两项随机试验的分析
Eur Heart J Open. 2025 Jan 29;5(1):oeaf006. doi: 10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf006. eCollection 2025 Jan.