ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and feasibility of all operators at a single center changing from predominantly femoral to radial access for coronary percutaneous procedures. BACKGROUND: The radial artery is currently regarded as a useful vascular access site for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The reduction in local vascular access complications is thought to be a major advantage of the radial route. Despite this, the technique is used less frequently possibly reflecting concerns by cardiologists about the feasibility of using radial access as a preferred option. METHODS: A retrospective study of 1004 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography with or without PCI was analyzed. Procedure details and clinical outcomes were assessed according to the radial or femoral approaches. RESULTS: The success rate for cardiac catheterization via the radial approach was 97.4% (815/837) and the femoral approach was 98.8% (165/167). The procedural failure rate for radial access was not different from the femoral route [2.6% vs. 1.2%; odds ratio (OR), 2.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53-9.71; P = 0.41]. Major access site complications occurred in 0.25% patients in the radial group compared with 4.8% patients in the femoral group [OR, 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.23); P < 0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: The radial approach has a high rate of success and is associated with fewer major local vascular access site complications than the femoral route. These results can be achieved early in the operator learning curve of low to medium volume operators.
Subject(s)
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/methods , Cardiac Catheterization/methods , Coronary Angiography/methods , Femoral Artery , Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Radial Artery , Aged , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/adverse effects , Cardiac Catheterization/adverse effects , Clinical Competence , Coronary Angiography/adverse effects , Feasibility Studies , Female , Hemorrhage/etiology , Humans , Learning Curve , Male , Middle Aged , New Zealand , Odds Ratio , Punctures , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeSubject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Endocarditis, Bacterial/surgery , Rectal Neoplasms/surgery , Streptococcal Infections/complications , Streptococcus agalactiae/isolation & purification , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/complications , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Aged , Echocardiography, Doppler , Endocarditis, Bacterial/complications , Endocarditis, Bacterial/diagnostic imaging , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/methods , Humans , Rectal Neoplasms/complications , Rectal Neoplasms/pathology , Risk Assessment , Streptococcal Infections/diagnosis , Treatment Outcome , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency/complications , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency/diagnostic imagingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The present study was done to analyze if glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) bolus-only will reduce vascular/bleeding complications and cost with similar major adverse cardiac events (MACE) when compared with GPI bolus + infusion. Evidence-based therapy of GPI inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) incorporates intravenous bolus followed by 12 to 18 hours of infusion. However, GPI bolus + infusion may increase vascular/bleeding complications and may not reduce MACE when compared with GPI bolus-only. METHODS: From January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2004, 2,629 consecutive patients received GPI during PCI at a single center. Of these, 1,064 patients received GPI bolus + infusion in 2003 and were compared with 1,565 patients that received GPI bolus-only in 2004. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. RESULTS: Patients receiving GPI bolus-only had reduced vascular/bleeding complications when compared with bolus + infusion (4.9% vs 7%, P < .05, odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.89). Furthermore, ischemic complications were similar in both groups, including periprocedural creatine kinase-MB enzyme release (12.8% vs 15.3%, P = NS), MACE at 30 days (3.2% vs 3%, P = NS), and death and myocardial infarction at 1 year (7.1% vs 7.8%, P = NS). In addition, GPI bolus-only reduced cost in US dollars ($323 vs $706, P < .001) and increased ambulatory PCI (13.1% vs 3.2%, P < .01), with reduced length of stay (1.1 vs 1.6 days, P < .01), when compared with GPI bolus + infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Glycoprotein inhibitor bolus-only reduces vascular/bleeding complications with similar MACE and reduced cost when compared with GPI bolus + infusion. In addition, GPI bolus-only improved ambulatory PCI and reduced length of stay. These results are consistent with a safer and cost-effective strategy for bolus-only when GPI therapy is considered during PCI.
