Femoral versus Radial Approach for Primary Percutaneous Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock: A Subanalysis from the ECLS-SHOCK Trial.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care Pub Date : 2025-03-05 DOI:10.1093/ehjacc/zuaf035
Mohammad Abumayyaleh, Holger Thiele, Tienush Rassaf, Amir Abbas Mahabadi, Ralf Lehmann, Ingo Eitel, Carsten Skurk, Peter Clemmensen, Marcus Hennersdorf, Ingo Voigt, Axel Linke, Eike Tigges, Peter Nordbeck, Christian Jung, Philipp Lauten, Hans-Josef Feistritzer, Janine Pöss, Taoufik Ouarrak, Steffen Schneider, Michael Behnes, Daniel Duerschmied, Steffen Desch, Anne Freund, Uwe Zeymer, Ibrahim Akin
{"title":"Femoral versus Radial Approach for Primary Percutaneous Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock: A Subanalysis from the ECLS-SHOCK Trial.","authors":"Mohammad Abumayyaleh, Holger Thiele, Tienush Rassaf, Amir Abbas Mahabadi, Ralf Lehmann, Ingo Eitel, Carsten Skurk, Peter Clemmensen, Marcus Hennersdorf, Ingo Voigt, Axel Linke, Eike Tigges, Peter Nordbeck, Christian Jung, Philipp Lauten, Hans-Josef Feistritzer, Janine Pöss, Taoufik Ouarrak, Steffen Schneider, Michael Behnes, Daniel Duerschmied, Steffen Desch, Anne Freund, Uwe Zeymer, Ibrahim Akin","doi":"10.1093/ehjacc/zuaf035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening complication of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Early revascularization with treating the culprit lesion improves survival. Nevertheless, the impact of access site (femoral vs. radial) on outcomes in infarct-related CS also in conjunction with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This subanalysis of the ECLS-SHOCK trial included patients with infarct-related CS treated with or without ECLS, divided into femoral and radial access groups. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included renal replacement therapy (RRT), repeat revascularization, reinfarction, rehospitalization for congestive heart failure, and poor neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] 3-5) within 30 days. Safety outcomes included bleeding and peripheral vascular complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 415 patients, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was initially intended through femoral (N=304; 72.9%) or radial (N=111; 26.6%) access. In the intended access site analysis, 25 patients (22.5%) in the radial group switched to femoral access, while 3 patients (1%) in the femoral group switched to radial access prior to or after coronary angiography. At 30 days, the overall mortality rate was higher in the femoral group compared to the radial group (52.0% vs. 37.8%) with a relative risk (RR) of 1.37; 95%-confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.78; p=0.011 with no significant differences in the crude rates of secondary and safety endpoint. In the analysis based on the actual access site (as opposed to intended access site used), 7.8% of patients in the ECLS arm switched from radial to femoral, while 7.5% of patients in the conservative arm switched from radial to femoral for or after coronary angiography. Mortality rates were higher in the femoral group for both ECLS (52.7% vs. 26.8%; p=0.003; RR 1.96 [95% CI, 1.16-3.32]) and conservative arms (52.2% vs. 37.5%; p=0.074; RR 1.39 [95% CI, 0.94-2.06]). In a multivariate analysis, femoral access was associated with a trend for predicting adjusted 30-day mortality (RR 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95-1.55; p=0.11).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In myocardial infarction related CS, nearly one-fifth of patients with intended radial access switched to femoral. In multivariate analysis, femoral access was associated with a trend to adversely affect 30-day mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":11861,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuaf035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening complication of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Early revascularization with treating the culprit lesion improves survival. Nevertheless, the impact of access site (femoral vs. radial) on outcomes in infarct-related CS also in conjunction with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) remains unclear.

Methods: This subanalysis of the ECLS-SHOCK trial included patients with infarct-related CS treated with or without ECLS, divided into femoral and radial access groups. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included renal replacement therapy (RRT), repeat revascularization, reinfarction, rehospitalization for congestive heart failure, and poor neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] 3-5) within 30 days. Safety outcomes included bleeding and peripheral vascular complications.

Results: Among 415 patients, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was initially intended through femoral (N=304; 72.9%) or radial (N=111; 26.6%) access. In the intended access site analysis, 25 patients (22.5%) in the radial group switched to femoral access, while 3 patients (1%) in the femoral group switched to radial access prior to or after coronary angiography. At 30 days, the overall mortality rate was higher in the femoral group compared to the radial group (52.0% vs. 37.8%) with a relative risk (RR) of 1.37; 95%-confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.78; p=0.011 with no significant differences in the crude rates of secondary and safety endpoint. In the analysis based on the actual access site (as opposed to intended access site used), 7.8% of patients in the ECLS arm switched from radial to femoral, while 7.5% of patients in the conservative arm switched from radial to femoral for or after coronary angiography. Mortality rates were higher in the femoral group for both ECLS (52.7% vs. 26.8%; p=0.003; RR 1.96 [95% CI, 1.16-3.32]) and conservative arms (52.2% vs. 37.5%; p=0.074; RR 1.39 [95% CI, 0.94-2.06]). In a multivariate analysis, femoral access was associated with a trend for predicting adjusted 30-day mortality (RR 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95-1.55; p=0.11).

Conclusions: In myocardial infarction related CS, nearly one-fifth of patients with intended radial access switched to femoral. In multivariate analysis, femoral access was associated with a trend to adversely affect 30-day mortality.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.90%
发文量
325
期刊介绍: The European Heart Journal - Acute Cardiovascular Care (EHJ-ACVC) offers a unique integrative approach by combining the expertise of the different sub specialties of cardiology, emergency and intensive care medicine in the management of patients with acute cardiovascular syndromes. Reading through the journal, cardiologists and all other healthcare professionals can access continuous updates that may help them to improve the quality of care and the outcome for patients with acute cardiovascular diseases.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Targeted proteomic profiling of cardiogenic shock in the cardiac intensive care unit. Femoral versus Radial Approach for Primary Percutaneous Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock: A Subanalysis from the ECLS-SHOCK Trial. Mechanical ventilation in acute pulmonary embolism: A randomised, experimental, crossover study. Answer: Triphasic radial pulse in a patient with abdominal pain. Clinical characteristics, management and predictors of mortality: results from national prospective cardiogenic shock registry (CZECH-SHOCK).
×
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