Author(s): Ruzsa Z, Ungi I, Horvth T, Sepp R, Zimmermann Z,
Abstract Share this page
Abstract BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via radial approach has been shown to be an alternative to femoral approach in emergency cases; however, its feasibility has been questioned. This single-center study was performed to compare the outcomes and complication rates between transradial (TR) and transfemoral (TF) PCI in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The clinical and angiographic data of 582 consecutive STEMI patients treated with PCI between 2001 and 2006 were evaluated in a retrospective study. Forty-three patients were excluded from the present study due to cardiogenic shock or rescue PCI. Patients (n=539) were categorized into the TR group (n=167) or the TF group (n=372), and several parameters were evaluated to assess the advantages and drawbacks of TR access: access-site crossover, rate of access-site complications, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, X-ray area dose, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 month, and consumption of angioplasty equipment. RESULTS: In the TR group, the crossover rate to femoral access was 5\%, while in the TF group, it was 0.8\% (P<.05). There was a significant difference, in both major and minor access-site complications, between the TR group and the TF group (0\% vs. 5\%, P<.05, and 4\% vs. 9\%, P<.05, respectively). Consumption of angioplasty equipment proved to be the same for the two groups. The MACE rate was 4\% in the TR group and 11\% in the TF group (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the TR approach is a safe and effective way to treat STEMI; furthermore, site-related complications are less common with this approach.
This article was published in Cardiovasc Revasc Med
and referenced in Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research