Cargando…

Comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching

BACKGROUND: Distal transradial access (dTRA) has been suggested to have great advantages over cTRA. However, there is a lack of preliminary data on dTRA in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To explore the feasibility and safety of d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Wenhua, Wang, Juan, Liang, Xiaofang, Wang, Qiang, Chen, Tao, Song, Yanbin, Shi, Ganwei, Li, Feng, Li, Yong, Xiao, Jianqiang, Cai, Gaojun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10238772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37270473
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04058-y
_version_ 1785053351256260608
author Li, Wenhua
Wang, Juan
Liang, Xiaofang
Wang, Qiang
Chen, Tao
Song, Yanbin
Shi, Ganwei
Li, Feng
Li, Yong
Xiao, Jianqiang
Cai, Gaojun
author_facet Li, Wenhua
Wang, Juan
Liang, Xiaofang
Wang, Qiang
Chen, Tao
Song, Yanbin
Shi, Ganwei
Li, Feng
Li, Yong
Xiao, Jianqiang
Cai, Gaojun
author_sort Li, Wenhua
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Distal transradial access (dTRA) has been suggested to have great advantages over cTRA. However, there is a lack of preliminary data on dTRA in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To explore the feasibility and safety of distal transradial access in patients with acute chest pain. METHODS: A total of 1269 patients complaining of acute chest pain in our emergency department from January 2020 to February 2022 were retrospectively included. The patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into the conventional transradial access (cTRA) group (n = 238) and the dTRA group (n = 158). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the baseline differences. RESULTS: The cannulation success rate in the dTRA group was significantly lower than that in the cTRA group (87.41% vs. 94.81%, p < 0.05). No significant differences in the puncture time and total procedure time were noted between the two groups (p > 0.05). Compared with the cTRA group, the hemostasis duration was significantly shorter [4(4, 4) h vs. 10(8, 10) h, p < 0.001) and the incidence of minor bleeding (BARC Type I and II) was significantly lower in the dTRA group than that in the cTRA group (0.85% vs. 5.48%, p = 0.045). Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion was observed in six patients (5.83%) in the cTRA group and one patient (1.14%) in the dTRA group (p = 0.126). The subgroup analysis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) showed no significant differences in the puncture time, D-to-B time or total procedure time between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The dTRA for emergency CAG or PCI has an acceptable success rate and puncture time, a shorter hemostasis time, and a downward trend in RAO rate compared to the cTRA. The dTRA did not increase the D-to-B time in emergency coronary interventions in STEMI patients. On the contrary, a low incidence of RAO by the dTRA created an opportunity for future coronary interventions in non-culprit vessels in the same access. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registry number: ChiCTR2200061104, date of registration: June 15, 2022). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-023-04058-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10238772
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102387722023-06-04 Comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching Li, Wenhua Wang, Juan Liang, Xiaofang Wang, Qiang Chen, Tao Song, Yanbin Shi, Ganwei Li, Feng Li, Yong Xiao, Jianqiang Cai, Gaojun BMC Geriatr Research BACKGROUND: Distal transradial access (dTRA) has been suggested to have great advantages over cTRA. However, there is a lack of preliminary data on dTRA in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To explore the feasibility and safety of distal transradial access in patients with acute chest pain. METHODS: A total of 1269 patients complaining of acute chest pain in our emergency department from January 2020 to February 2022 were retrospectively included. The patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into the conventional transradial access (cTRA) group (n = 238) and the dTRA group (n = 158). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the baseline differences. RESULTS: The cannulation success rate in the dTRA group was significantly lower than that in the cTRA group (87.41% vs. 94.81%, p < 0.05). No significant differences in the puncture time and total procedure time were noted between the two groups (p > 0.05). Compared with the cTRA group, the hemostasis duration was significantly shorter [4(4, 4) h vs. 10(8, 10) h, p < 0.001) and the incidence of minor bleeding (BARC Type I and II) was significantly lower in the dTRA group than that in the cTRA group (0.85% vs. 5.48%, p = 0.045). Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion was observed in six patients (5.83%) in the cTRA group and one patient (1.14%) in the dTRA group (p = 0.126). The subgroup analysis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) showed no significant differences in the puncture time, D-to-B time or total procedure time between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The dTRA for emergency CAG or PCI has an acceptable success rate and puncture time, a shorter hemostasis time, and a downward trend in RAO rate compared to the cTRA. The dTRA did not increase the D-to-B time in emergency coronary interventions in STEMI patients. On the contrary, a low incidence of RAO by the dTRA created an opportunity for future coronary interventions in non-culprit vessels in the same access. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registry number: ChiCTR2200061104, date of registration: June 15, 2022). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-023-04058-y. BioMed Central 2023-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10238772/ /pubmed/37270473 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04058-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Li, Wenhua
Wang, Juan
Liang, Xiaofang
Wang, Qiang
Chen, Tao
Song, Yanbin
Shi, Ganwei
Li, Feng
Li, Yong
Xiao, Jianqiang
Cai, Gaojun
Comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching
title Comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching
title_full Comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching
title_fullStr Comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching
title_short Comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching
title_sort comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10238772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37270473
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04058-y
work_keys_str_mv AT liwenhua comparisonofthefeasibilityandsafetybetweendistaltransradialaccessandconventionaltransradialaccessinpatientswithacutechestpainasinglecentercohortstudyusingpropensityscorematching
AT wangjuan comparisonofthefeasibilityandsafetybetweendistaltransradialaccessandconventionaltransradialaccessinpatientswithacutechestpainasinglecentercohortstudyusingpropensityscorematching
AT liangxiaofang comparisonofthefeasibilityandsafetybetweendistaltransradialaccessandconventionaltransradialaccessinpatientswithacutechestpainasinglecentercohortstudyusingpropensityscorematching
AT wangqiang comparisonofthefeasibilityandsafetybetweendistaltransradialaccessandconventionaltransradialaccessinpatientswithacutechestpainasinglecentercohortstudyusingpropensityscorematching
AT chentao comparisonofthefeasibilityandsafetybetweendistaltransradialaccessandconventionaltransradialaccessinpatientswithacutechestpainasinglecentercohortstudyusingpropensityscorematching
AT songyanbin comparisonofthefeasibilityandsafetybetweendistaltransradialaccessandconventionaltransradialaccessinpatientswithacutechestpainasinglecentercohortstudyusingpropensityscorematching
AT shiganwei comparisonofthefeasibilityandsafetybetweendistaltransradialaccessandconventionaltransradialaccessinpatientswithacutechestpainasinglecentercohortstudyusingpropensityscorematching
AT lifeng comparisonofthefeasibilityandsafetybetweendistaltransradialaccessandconventionaltransradialaccessinpatientswithacutechestpainasinglecentercohortstudyusingpropensityscorematching
AT liyong comparisonofthefeasibilityandsafetybetweendistaltransradialaccessandconventionaltransradialaccessinpatientswithacutechestpainasinglecentercohortstudyusingpropensityscorematching
AT xiaojianqiang comparisonofthefeasibilityandsafetybetweendistaltransradialaccessandconventionaltransradialaccessinpatientswithacutechestpainasinglecentercohortstudyusingpropensityscorematching
AT caigaojun comparisonofthefeasibilityandsafetybetweendistaltransradialaccessandconventionaltransradialaccessinpatientswithacutechestpainasinglecentercohortstudyusingpropensityscorematching