Transradial Intervention in Dialysis Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Japanese Nationwide Registry Study

Toshiki Kuno, Kyohei Yamaji, Tadao Aikawa, Mitsuaki Sawano, Tomo Ando, Yohei Numasawa, Hideki Wada, Tetsuya Amano, Ken Kozuma, Shun Kohsaka
{"title":"Transradial Intervention in Dialysis Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Japanese Nationwide Registry Study","authors":"Toshiki Kuno, Kyohei Yamaji, Tadao Aikawa, Mitsuaki Sawano, Tomo Ando, Yohei Numasawa, Hideki Wada, Tetsuya Amano, Ken Kozuma, Shun Kohsaka","doi":"10.1093/ehjopen/oead116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Transradial intervention (TRI) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used to reduce periprocedural complications. However, its effectiveness and safety for patients on dialysis are not well established. Aims We aimed to investigate the association of TRI with in-hospital complications in dialysis patients undergoing PCI. Methods We included 44,462 patients on dialysis who underwent PCI using Japanese nationwide PCI registry data (2019–2021) regardless of acute or chronic coronary syndrome. Patients were categorized based on access site: TRI, transfemoral intervention (TFI). Periprocedural access site bleeding complication requiring transfusion was the primary outcome and in-hospital death and other periprocedural complications were the secondary outcomes. Matched weighted analysis was performed for TRI and TFI. Results Here, 8,267 (18.6%) underwent TRI, 36,195 (81.4%) underwent TFI, . Patients who received TRI were older and had lower rates of comorbidities than those who received TFI. Access site bleeding rate and in-hospital death were significantly lower in the TRI group (0.1% versus 0.7%, P < 0.001; 1.8% versus 3.2%, P < 0.001, respectively). After adjustment, TRI was associated with a lower risk of access site bleeding (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.19 [0.099–0.38]; P < 0.001) and in-hospital death (OR [95% CI]: 0.79 [0.65–0.96]; P = 0.02). Other periprocedural complications between TRI and TFI were not significantly different. Conclusions In patients undergoing dialysis and PCI, TRI had a lower risk of access site bleeding and in-hospital death than TFI. This suggests that TRI may be safer for this patient population.","PeriodicalId":93995,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oead116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background Transradial intervention (TRI) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used to reduce periprocedural complications. However, its effectiveness and safety for patients on dialysis are not well established. Aims We aimed to investigate the association of TRI with in-hospital complications in dialysis patients undergoing PCI. Methods We included 44,462 patients on dialysis who underwent PCI using Japanese nationwide PCI registry data (2019–2021) regardless of acute or chronic coronary syndrome. Patients were categorized based on access site: TRI, transfemoral intervention (TFI). Periprocedural access site bleeding complication requiring transfusion was the primary outcome and in-hospital death and other periprocedural complications were the secondary outcomes. Matched weighted analysis was performed for TRI and TFI. Results Here, 8,267 (18.6%) underwent TRI, 36,195 (81.4%) underwent TFI, . Patients who received TRI were older and had lower rates of comorbidities than those who received TFI. Access site bleeding rate and in-hospital death were significantly lower in the TRI group (0.1% versus 0.7%, P < 0.001; 1.8% versus 3.2%, P < 0.001, respectively). After adjustment, TRI was associated with a lower risk of access site bleeding (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.19 [0.099–0.38]; P < 0.001) and in-hospital death (OR [95% CI]: 0.79 [0.65–0.96]; P = 0.02). Other periprocedural complications between TRI and TFI were not significantly different. Conclusions In patients undergoing dialysis and PCI, TRI had a lower risk of access site bleeding and in-hospital death than TFI. This suggests that TRI may be safer for this patient population.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗透析患者的经桡动脉介入治疗:一项日本全国登记研究
背景经桡动脉介入治疗(TRI)用于经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)可减少围手术期并发症。然而,其对透析患者的有效性和安全性尚未得到很好的证实。目的探讨行PCI的透析患者TRI与院内并发症的关系。方法:采用日本全国PCI登记数据(2019-2021)纳入44,462例接受PCI治疗的透析患者,无论急性或慢性冠状动脉综合征。根据入路位置对患者进行分类:TRI、经股介入(TFI)。围手术期通路出血并发症是主要结局,院内死亡和其他围手术期并发症是次要结局。对TRI和TFI进行匹配加权分析。结果8267例(18.6%)行TRI, 36195例(81.4%)行TFI。与接受TFI的患者相比,接受TRI的患者年龄更大,合并症发生率更低。TRI组通路部位出血率和院内死亡率显著降低(0.1% vs 0.7%, P <0.001;1.8%对3.2%,P <分别为0.001)。调整后,TRI与较低的通路部位出血风险相关(优势比[OR][95%可信区间(CI)]: 0.19 [0.099-0.38];P, lt;0.001)和院内死亡(OR [95% CI]: 0.79 [0.65-0.96];P = 0.02)。其他围手术期并发症在TRI和TFI之间无显著差异。结论在接受透析和PCI治疗的患者中,TRI发生通路部位出血和院内死亡的风险低于TFI。这表明TRI可能对这类患者更安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The incidence of atrial fibrillation detected by implantable loop recorders: a comparison between patients with and without embolic stroke of undetermined source. Intra-individual variability in lipoprotein(a): the value of a repeat measure for reclassifying individuals at intermediate risk. New data allow to better understand the secrets of lipoprotein(a): is that for sure? Correction to: Correlates and consequences of atrial fibrillation in a prospective study of 25 000 participants in the China Kadoorie Biobank. Colchicine for cardiovascular and limb risk reduction in Medicare beneficiaries with peripheral artery disease: emulation of target trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1