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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |