Objective: To examine the safety and efficacy of emergency transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Design: Single-centre observational study with prospective data collection.

Setting: A regional cardiac centre, United Kingdom.

Patients: 1051 consecutive patients admitted with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, without cardiogenic shock, between November 2004 and October 2008.

Interventions: Percutaneous coronary interventions by radial and femoral access

Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were procedural success, major vascular complication and failed initial access strategy. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, needle-to-balloon times, contrast volume used, radiation dose absorbed and time to discharge. Multiple regression analysis was used to adjust for potential differences between the groups.

Results: 571 patients underwent radial access and 480 femoral. A variable preference for radial access was observed among the lead operators (between 21% and 90%). Procedural success was similar between the radial and femoral groups, but major vascular complications were more frequent at the site of femoral access (0% radial versus 1.9% femoral, p = 0.001). Failure of the initial access strategy was more frequent in the radial group (7.7% versus 0.6%, p<0.001). Adjustment for other procedural and clinical predictors did not alter these findings. Needle-to-balloon time, as a measure of procedural efficiency, was equal for radial and femoral groups.

Conclusions: In the setting of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction without cardiogenic shock, transradial primary angioplasty is safe, with comparable outcomes to a femoral approach and a lower risk of vascular complications.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2009.170233DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

percutaneous coronary
12
primary percutaneous
8
coronary intervention
8
myocardial infarction
8
access radial
8
radial versus
8
st-elevation myocardial
8
radial femoral
8
outcome measures
8
procedural success
8

Similar Publications

Pharmacotherapeutic options for coronary thrombosis treatment: where are we today?

Expert Opin Pharmacother

January 2025

Cardiovascular Research Unit, Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Introduction: Advances in pharmacotherapy for coronary thrombosis treatment and prevention have transformed the clinical outcomes of patients with coronary artery disease but increased the complexity of therapeutic decision-making. Improvements in percutaneous coronary intervention techniques and stent design have reduced the incidence of thrombotic complications, which consequently has increased the challenge of adequately powering clinical trials of novel antithrombotic strategies for efficacy outcomes. Knowledge of the pathophysiology of coronary thrombosis and the characteristics of antithrombotic drugs can help with therapeutic decisions.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Coronary revascularisation deferral based on quantitative flow ratio or fractional flow reserve: a post hoc analysis of the FAVOR III Europe trial.

EuroIntervention

January 2025

Hospital Clínico San Carlos IDISSC, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain and Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red - Enfermedades Cardiovasculares (CIBERCV), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.

Background: Safe deferral of revascularisation is a key aspect of physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). While recent evidence gathered in the FAVOR III Europe trial showed that quantitative flow ratio (QFR) guidance did not meet non-inferiority to fractional flow reserve (FFR) guidance, it remains unknown if QFR might have a specific value in revascularisation deferral.

Aims: We aimed to evaluate the safety of coronary revascularisation deferral based on QFR as compared with FFR.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Evaluation of Peer Review of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Operator Performance.

Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes

January 2025

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle (J.A.D., E.J.S., D.H.A.).

Background: Case-based peer review of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used by many hospitals for quality improvement and to make decisions regarding physician competency. However, there are no studies testing the reliability or validity of peer review for PCI performance evaluation.

Methods: We recruited interventional cardiologists from 12 Veterans Affairs Health System facilities throughout the United States to provide PCI cases for review.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI), particularly ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), significantly impacts global health, exacerbated by risk factors such as diabetes mellitus (DM). While the Gensini score effectively quantifies coronary artery lesions, its correlation with fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels, particularly in a non-linear fashion, has not been thoroughly explored in STEMI patients.

Methods: This study analyzed data from 464 STEMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention at the First People's Hospital of Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province, China, from January 2010 to October 2014.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!