Cargando…

Trans-Radial versus Trans-Femoral Intervention for the Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations: Results from Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry

Trans-radial (TR) approach is increasingly recognized as an alternative to the routine use of trans-femoral (TF) approach. However, there are limited data comparing the outcomes of these two approaches for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. We evaluated outcomes of TR and TF percutaneous...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chung, Seungmin, Her, Sung-Ho, Song, Pil Sang, Song, Young Bin, Hahn, Joo-Yong, Choi, Jin-Ho, Lee, Sang Hoon, Jang, Yangsoo, Yoon, Jung Han, Tahk, Seung-Jea, Park, Seung-Jung, Choi, Seung-Hyuk, Seung, Ki Bae, Gwon, Hyeon-Cheol
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3594602/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23486858
http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2013.28.3.388
Descripción
Sumario:Trans-radial (TR) approach is increasingly recognized as an alternative to the routine use of trans-femoral (TF) approach. However, there are limited data comparing the outcomes of these two approaches for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. We evaluated outcomes of TR and TF percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in this complex lesion. Procedural outcomes and clinical events were compared in 1,668 patients who underwent PCI for non-left main bifurcation lesions, according to the vascular approach, either TR (n = 503) or TF (n = 1,165). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) in all patients and in 424 propensity-score matched pairs of patients. There were no significant differences between TR and TF approaches for procedural success in the main vessel (99.6% vs 98.6%, P = 0.08) and side branches (62.6% vs 66.7%, P = 0.11). Over a mean follow-up of 22 months, cardiac death or MI (1.8% vs 2.2%, P = 0.45), TLR (4.0% vs 5.2%, P = 0.22), and MACE (5.2% vs 7.0%, P = 0.11) did not significantly differ between TR and TF groups, respectively. These results were consistent after propensity score-matched analysis. In conclusion, TR PCI is a feasible alternative approach to conventional TF approaches for bifurcation PCI (clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00851526).