经桡动脉与股动脉入径直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死的对比研究

目的　对经桡动脉与股动脉入径直接经皮冠状动脉介入 (TRA pPCI与TFA pPCI)治疗急性心肌梗死 (AMI)的临床可行性、安全性及其疗效进行对比研究。方法　 2 0 0 0年 9月至 2 0 0 2年 8月期间 ,2 0 8例 [男性 159例 ,女性 49例 ,平均年龄 (58 9± 11 9)岁 ]发病在 12h内的AMI患者 ,随机分为TRA pPCI组 10 6例 ,TFA pPCI组 10 2例。比较两种入径 pPCI各操作时程和疗效及术后出血、血栓 /栓塞和血管并发症 ;观察桡动脉痉挛发生率并评价药物预防和解痉效果。并随访比较TRA pPCI组术后 1个月双侧桡动脉内径和血流速度及桡动脉血管并发症。结果　TRA pPCI组和TFA pPCI组各 2例患者因入径血管困难而交叉调组。TRA pPCI组PCI处理病变血管 10 6支 ,其中完全闭塞病变 2 8支。TFA pPCI组PCI处理病变血管 10 2支 ,完全闭塞 3 4支。两组患者在桡 /股动脉穿刺时间、指引导管置入时间、病人到达医院至球囊开始扩张时间、总pPCI时程无明显差异 [(18 3± 3 3 )s比 (16 9± 4 2 )s ;(6 0± 1 6)min比 (5 8± 0 9)min ;(45 3± 19 6)min比 (42 8± 2 2 7)min ;(49 2± 2 4 1)min比 (46 5± 2 6 4)min ,P均 >0 0 5]。两组一次入径血管穿刺成功率、梗死相关动脉 (IRA)开通率和PCI成功率亦相似 (93 4%比 96 1% ;10 0 %比 1     

老年急性心肌梗死患者经桡动脉与股动脉入径直接经皮冠脉介入治疗的对比研究

目的　探讨老年急性心肌梗死 (AMI)患者经桡动脉入径行直接冠脉介入治疗 (TRA pPCI)的可行性、安全性及疗效。 方法　 86例(男 60例 ,女 2 6例 ,平均年龄 68 9± 1 1 4岁 )发病在 1 2h内需接受 pPCI治疗的老年AMI患者 ,随机分为TRA pPCI组 46例 ,经股动脉入径 (TFA pPCI)组 40例 ,比较两种入径pPCI各操作时程、疗效及术中、术后可能出现的出血、血栓 /栓塞等血管并发症的发生率和预防处理措施。 结果　两组在处理病变血管支数、病变程度 ,以及在 pPCI各操作时程、疗效和成功率等均无明显差异。术后TFA pPCI组出血、血栓 /栓塞等血管并发症明显高于TRA pPCI组 (P <0 0 5)。TRA pPCI组术中有 4 3 %患者出现上肢动脉轻度痉挛 ,但经解痉治疗有效且不需中断PCI操作。术后随访TRA pPCI组Allen’s试验时间较前无明显变化 ,且双侧桡动脉内径及收缩期血流峰速无明显差别。结论　对血流动力学稳定的老年AMI患者 ,两种入径的pP CI治疗时程和效果相似 ,但TRA pPCI组出血、血栓 /栓塞等血管并发症少 ,且拔除鞘管时无须中断肝素抗凝治疗 ,可作为老年AMI患者PCI治疗时选择的血管途径之一     

经桡动脉与股动脉入径介入治疗冠心病的对比研究

经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术(PCI)能重建冠脉血运、缓解心肌缺血.经股动脉入径行PCI的传统方法,血管并发症多、易出血,经桡动脉入径行PCI的并发症相对少.我们对经桡动脉和股动脉入径行PCI的两种方法进行了对比研究.     

经桡动脉与经股动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死的对比研究

目的：探讨对急性心肌梗死患者经桡动脉途径行急诊介入治疗的有效性和可行性。方法：回顾性分析急诊介入治疗ST段抬高心肌梗死62例,对比经桡动脉介入（TRI,38例）及经股动脉介入（TFI,24例）穿刺成功率及经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）成功率、血管穿刺时间及手术时间、出血及穿刺相关并发症。结果：血管穿刺成功率：TRI组为97.4%,TFI组为100%,PCI成功率分别为94.7%和95.8%（P〉0.05）,均无明显差异。两组血管穿刺时间无显著差异（P〉0.05）。TRI组总PCI时间明显短于TFI组[（38.56±11.55）min比（43.77±10.62）min,P〈0.05];穿刺相关并发症发生率明显低于TFI组（5.26%比16.67%,P〈0.01）。结论：经桡动脉途径急诊介入治疗急性心肌梗死安全有效,不逊于经股动脉途径,对于选择性手术可以优先选用。     

经桡动脉与经股动脉途径行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死的对比研究

目的对经桡动脉与股动脉入径直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死（MAI）的可行性、安全性及其疗效进行对比研究。方法选取2005年10月—2007年6月我院和广东省人民医院患者123例。其中,男105例,女18例,平均年龄（57.12±10.55）岁;发病在12h内的STEMI患者,为常规股动脉组。2007年7月—2009年6月行急诊PCI术的患者共126例。其中,男99例,女27例,平均年龄（59.90±10.17）岁;发病在12h内的STEMI患者,为选择性桡动脉组。比较两组的手术成功率、球囊扩张时间、手术时间、穿刺局部出血并发症。结果桡动脉组和股动脉组手术成功率、手术时间和第1次球囊扩张时间比较差异均无统计学意义;桡动脉组穿刺局部出血并发症降低,与股动脉组比较差异有统计学意义。结论经桡动脉入径直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗在急性心肌梗死患者有较好的安全性和有效性。     

急诊经桡动脉与股动脉入路介入治疗ST段抬高急性心肌梗死对比研究

目的观察经桡动脉入路行急诊ST段抬高急性心肌梗死直接经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗的有效性和安全性。方法选择沈阳军区总医院2005年1月至2006年10月连续607例ST段抬高性急性心肌梗死(STEMI)住院患者,分别接受经桡动脉入路(273例)或经股动脉入路(334例)途径行PCI治疗,观察两组手术成功率和并发症发生率。结果两组患者PCI成功率差异无统计学意义(97.07%对95.81%,P>0.05)。经桡动脉入路组局部血肿、假性动脉瘤、迷走反射发生率显著低于经股动脉入路组。结论行PCI治疗的STEMI患者经桡动脉入路途径是安全、有效和可行的方法,与经股动脉比较,经桡动脉途径可减少并发症的发生。     

经桡动脉入径冠状动脉介入治疗术后桡动脉闭塞的研究

正自1989年经桡动脉入径冠状动脉介入治疗(transradial coronary intervention,TRI)首先被Campeau[1]报道后,TRI已在临床上广泛开展,包括欧美国家目前更趋向于TRI而并非是经股动脉入径,因为TRI具有创伤小、恢复快、成功率高、住院时间少等优点。但其相关并发症也逐渐被临床医师所认识。桡动脉闭塞(radial artery occlusion,RAO)是最常见的并发症之一,其发生率为1%～10%[2]。本文就对RAO的发病机制、危险因素、临床表现及诊断、治疗措施、干预措施作一综述。     

老年急性心肌梗死患者经桡动脉和股动脉介入治疗的对比分析

目的分析老年急性心肌梗死患者经桡动脉直接PCI治疗的成功率、并发症以及应用经验。方法选择行直接PCI治疗的老年急性ST段抬高心肌梗死患者96例,根据PCI操作途径分为桡动脉组(50例)和股动脉组(46例),比较两组的手术成功率和手术结果,分析手术并发症以及住院期间预后。结果桡动脉组和股动脉组手术成功率相似(92.0%vs91.3%,P>0.05),桡动脉组有两例患者交叉到股动脉组手术成功,两组手术时间、穿刺时间和第一次球囊扩张时间均无显著差异(P>0.05),但桡动脉组透视时间显著延长(P<0.05),住院期间主要心血管不良事件两组无显著差异,桡动脉组穿刺局部出血并发症显著降低(2.0%vs10.8%,P<0.05)。结论经桡动脉直接PCI在老年急性心肌梗死患者中有较好的安全性和有效性。     

急性心肌梗死经桡动脉直接介入治疗临床研究进展

<正>近年来随着器械和技术的进步,经桡动脉冠状动脉介入治疗(TRI)广泛开展,国内某些有经验的中心TRI比例占所有PCI的90%以上,多数经股动脉可以完成的复杂冠状动脉病变类型,目前均可经桡动脉完成。TRI具有出血并发症低、患者舒适度高等优点,但在急性心肌梗死(AMI)中是否可以常规应用还存在一些顾虑,尤其是手术可完成性、手术延迟等方面,另外AMI患者一般都应用更强的抗凝、抗血小板药物,出血的风险高于常规择期PCI,众所周知的TRI降低出血并发症的优势在AMI直接PCI中是否更加明显?其降低出血的优势是否能带来真正的临床获益?我们结合最新的临床试验以及临床实践,就上述问题进行阐述。     

Transradial Artery Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Early revascularization is the gold standard for management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The use of transradial artery access (TRA) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased in recent years and has emerged as a safe and effective approach to PCI in high-risk patients, with advantages in reduced major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and all-cause mortality when compared with transfemoral artery access (TFA). Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated these advantages of TRA vs. TFA PCI in STEMI patients. Although there remains a lack of dedicated randomized trials in CS, observational data suggest benefits on the same endpoints as in STEMI with TRA vs. TFA PCI in CS. This review summarizes the existing literature on the use of TRA compared to TFA for STEMI and CS patients; the reduction of major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and mortality associated with TRA in STEMI and CS; and technical considerations and challenges in the care of these high-risk patient populations.     

Radial vs. Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Artery Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BackgroundWe aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of transradial vs transfemoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without cardiogenic shock.MethodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of STEMI patients who underwent transradial angiography (TRA) compared to transfemoral angiography (TFA). Our outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause mortality, severe bleeding, access site bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major vascular complications. Summary statistics are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsIn a pooled analysis of 17 RCTs with 12,118 randomized patients, the use of transradial compared to transfemoral approach in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock was associated with a significant reduction in MACE [OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.73–0.99; p = 0.04; NNT = 111; I² = 0%)] and all-cause mortality [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.57–0.88; p < 0.01; NNT = 111; I² = 0%)]. Severe bleeding [OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.44–0.74; p < 0.01; NNT = 77; I² = 0%)], access-site bleeding [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.26–0.59; p < 0.01; NNT = 67; I² = 24%)], and major vascular complications [OR of 0.31 (95% CI 0.17–0.55; p < 0.01; NNT = 125; I² = 0%)] were lower in TRA compared to TFA. There was no difference in stroke (0.6% vs 0.5%) or recurrent myocardial infarction (2.01% vs 2.02%) between the two approaches.ConclusionsFor coronary intervention in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock, there is a clear mortality benefit with the TRA over TFA. Further studies are needed to see if this mortality benefit persists over the long-term.     

Effectiveness and Feasibility of Transradial Approach for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of transradial approach for primary, emergency percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） in patients with acute myocardial infarction （AMI）. Methods One hundred and ninety five patients with AMI undergone primary PCI were randomized into two groups using different catheter insertion pathways ： 105 cases by transfemoral approach and 90 cases by transradial approach. We compared data of different operating approaches in terms of success rate of access, cannulation time, the time from local anesthesia to the first balloon inflation, the total procedure time, success rate of PCI, access site complications, total duration of hospitalization, and the clinical outcomes at six-month follow-up. Results The success rate of artery puncture, cannulation time, and the time from local anesthesia to the first balloon inflation in the transradial and transfemoral groups were 98.9 % vs 100 % （P 〉0. 05）, 3.15 ± 1.56 minutes vs 2. 86 ± 0.97 minutes （P 〉0. 05）, and 18.56 ± 4. 37 minutes vs 17.75± 3.21 minutes （P 〉 0. 05 ）, respectively. Although the total procedure time was significantly shorter in the transfemoral group （27.89 ± 3.95 minutes） than in the transradial group （29.75 ±4. 38 minutes） （P 〈0. 05）, the overall PCI success rate was similar between the two groups （96.2 % vs 96. 7 % ）. Use of the transradial approach was associated with fewer access site complications （ 2. 2 % vs 11.4 %, P 〈 0. 05 ） and a shorter length of hospital stay （ 10. 6 days vs 13.8 days, P 〈 0. 05 ）. At six-month follow-up, the cumulative cardiac event-free survival rate was 86. 1% and 86. 4% （P 〉 0. 05 ）, respectively, in the transradial and transfemoral groups. Conclusions Transradial approach achieved similar effectiveness as transfemoral approach in emergency PCI. However, the use of the transradial approach decreased access complications and hospital stay. Primary PCI via transradial approach is safe, effective, and feasible in patients with AMI.     

A Comparative Study of Transulnar and Transradial Artery Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Objectives

Transradial access has become commonly used for elective evaluation of patients with coronary artery disease, but it has some disadvantages and has had limited use in the acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Because the diameter of the ulnar artery is usually larger than that of the radial artery, we hypothesized that the ulnar artery could be used as an access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The present study compares the feasibility, safety, and outcome of transulnar artery and transradial artery access for PCI in patients with ACS.

Methods

We reviewed 636 patients who had PCI for ACS from May 2006 to May 2009. The patients were randomly assigned to transulnar intervention (TUI; 317) or transradial intervention (TRI; 319).

Results

Several outcomes were similar in the TUI and TRI groups: success rate of first puncture, duration of guiding catheter engagement, puncture‐to‐balloon inflation time, final thrombolysis in myocardial grade 3 flow, complications at the vascular access site, and postprocedure complications. The incidence of severe arterial spasm and forearm hematoma in the TUI groups was significantly less than that in the TRI group. At 1‐year follow‐up, the level of blood oxygen saturation at the middle finger and Doppler ultrasonographic characteristics of the ulnar artery did not significantly change from pre‐PCI values for these criteria in either group.

Conclusion

The TUI approach has results and access complications similar to the TRI approach and is a safe and feasible alternative for ACS patients. (J Interven Cardiol 2014;27:525–530)

     

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IntroductionPCI of ULMS is frequently performed through TFA because of technical complexity and safety concern. Studies have shown comparable efficacy and safety of TRA versus TFA, however, these studies are few in number. We intended to compare the clinical outcomes between transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (ULMS) by performing a meta-analysis.MethodA systematic search of database, including, PubMed, Web of Science, Google scholar and Cochrane Database were performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were included comparing “TRA” versus “TFA” in patients undergoing PCI in ULMS. The primary outcome was a procedural success rate. Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, access site complications, in-hospital and long term: major adverse cardiac events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular mortality.ResultsEight studies were included in the analysis. The procedural success rate was 97.3% and there was no statistically significant difference between TRA and TFA groups (OR, 1.41 [CI 0.64, 3.12], I² = 26%). The rates of access site complications (OR, 0.17 [CI 0.07, 0.41], I² = 16%), major bleeding (OR, 0.39 [CI 0.17, 0.86], I² = 0%) and all-cause mortality (OR, 0.28 [CI 0.12, 0.64], I² = 0%) were lower in the TRA group. There were no significant differences in in-hospital and long term cardiovascular mortality, MI and MACE between the two groups.ConclusionIn contrast to TFA, TRA is associated with reduced bleeding and access site complications, with similar procedural success rate in patients undergoing PCI of ULMS.