A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Gender-Specific Performance of One- Compared to Two-Catheter Concepts in Transradial Coronary Angiography - Insights From the Randomized UDDC-Radial-Trial. | LitMetric

Gender-Specific Performance of One- Compared to Two-Catheter Concepts in Transradial Coronary Angiography - Insights From the Randomized UDDC-Radial-Trial.

Cardiovasc Revasc Med

Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center Berlin and Charite University Medicine Berlin, Campus Benjamin-Franklin (CBF), 12203 Berlin, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Site Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), 10117 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address:

Published: October 2022

Objectives: The present sub-analysis from the randomized UDDC-Radial-Trial sought to compare one-catheter concepts (OCC) with two-catheter concepts (TCC) in different patient subgroups, particularly in those depending on gender and age.

Background: There is an ongoing debate regarding potential performance differences of OCC compared to TCC for transradial coronary angiography in specific patient subgroups.

Methods: The randomized UDDC-Radial-Trial enrolled a total of 300 patients planed for coronary angiography in a 2:1 ratio to either OCC by Tiger II (n = 100) and BLK (n = 100) or TCC by Judkins (n = 100) catheters. Predefined patient subgroups stratified for age, gender and patient constitution were analyzed with regard to the primary outcome measure of time required for a complete coronary angiography.

Results: In male patients time for coronary angiography was significantly shorter in the TCC group compared to the OCC group (510 ± 37 s vs. 615 ± 35 s; p = 0.046). No difference between the catheter concepts was observed in the subset of female patients (525 ± 34 s vs. 583 ± 54 s; p = 0.43). TCC was associated with shorter coronary angiography time in patients aged <71 years compared to OCC (462 ± 23 s vs. 570 ± 38 s; p = 0.018). In patients ≥72 years of age no difference was detected (573 ± 41 s vs. 636 ± 45 s; p = 0.31). Other subgroups showed no relevant differences in angiography time among OCC and TCC.

Conclusions: The present subgroup analysis from the UDDC-radial trial demonstrates the use of OCC in transradial diagnostic angiography to be inferior compared to TCC in terms of angiography time in younger and male patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2022.05.001DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

coronary angiography
20
randomized uddc-radial-trial
12
two-catheter concepts
8
transradial coronary
8
patient subgroups
8
coronary
6
angiography
5
tcc
5
gender-specific performance
4
performance one-
4

Similar Publications

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!