کد مقاله کد نشریه سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی نسخه تمام متن
2945430 1577114 2014 10 صفحه PDF دانلود رایگان
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله ISI
Procedural Volume and Outcomes With Radial or Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention
ترجمه فارسی عنوان
دوره درمان و نتایج با دسترسی رادیال یا فمورال برای آنژیوگرافی و مداخله کرونری
موضوعات مرتبط
علوم پزشکی و سلامت پزشکی و دندانپزشکی کاردیولوژی و پزشکی قلب و عروق
چکیده انگلیسی

ObjectivesThe study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach.BackgroundRIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) was a randomized trial of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention (N = 7,021), which overall did not show a difference in primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non–coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding.MethodsIn pre-specified subgroup analyses, the hazard ratios for the primary outcome were compared among centers divided by tertiles and among individual operators. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent effect of center and operator volumes after adjusting for other variables.ResultsIn high-volume radial centers, the primary outcome was reduced with radial versus femoral access (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.87) but not in intermediate- (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.72) or low-volume centers (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.31; interaction p = 0.021). High-volume centers enrolled a higher proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). After adjustment for STEMI, the benefit of radial access persisted at high-volume radial centers. There was no difference in the primary outcome between radial and femoral access by operator volume: high-volume operators (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.28), intermediate (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27), and low (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; interaction p = 0.536). However, in a multivariable model, overall center volume and radial center volume were independently associated with the primary outcome but not femoral center volume (overall percutaneous coronary intervention volume HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96; radial volume HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97; and femoral volume HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07; p = 0.98).ConclusionsProcedural volume and expertise are important, particularly for radial percutaneous coronary intervention. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273)

ناشر
Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت)
Journal: Journal of the American College of Cardiology - Volume 63, Issue 10, 18 March 2014, Pages 954–963
نویسندگان
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,