Crossover Alternatives of Default Right Radial Artery Access for Acute Myocardial Infarction Intervention

O. Kalpak, H. Pejkov, G. Kalpak, Marija Jovanoska, B. Zafirovska, S. Kedev
{"title":"Crossover Alternatives of Default Right Radial Artery Access for Acute Myocardial Infarction Intervention","authors":"O. Kalpak, H. Pejkov, G. Kalpak, Marija Jovanoska, B. Zafirovska, S. Kedev","doi":"10.1515/mmr-2017-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction. Being a default transradial access center we have encountered the need for alternative to the right radial artery. Determining the most frequent alternative access strategy for PCI in STEMI patientswasthe focus of our study. We sought to analyze whether the wrist access strategy impacts procedure time and success rate particularly for the STEMI interventions where time is of paramount importance. Methods. During four years, in our Center 2624 consecutive all-comers STEMI patients underwent urgent coronary intervention. TRA was used as the first-choice access strategy. We sought to assess crossover rate and safety of preferable access strategy. Crossover occurred according to the operator's decision. Primary outcomes were: access site crossover rate and In Lab time, secondary outcomes were PCI time, X-ray time, mortality and MACE at 30 days and at 6 months. Results. Overall crossover rate from default radial was 5.4% (144 out of 2624 patients). We treated 98.7% (2589) patients by wrist access and only 1.3% (35) patients with TFA. Crossover towards left radial occurred in 47.9% (69 out of 144 patients), towards ulnar 27.8% (40 patients) and towards TFA only 24.3% (35 patients). The meanIn-Lab time 40.4±17.7 minutes, PCI time was 21.4±7.4 min, X-ray time 9.2±4.7 minutes. Survival outcomes at 30 days were: MACE rate of 6.6% (174 patients), mortality rate of 5.0% (131 patients). At six months MACE rate was 8.6% and mortality rate was 5.6%. Conclusions. Default radial access is associated with alow crossover rate. Crossover towards femoral occurred less frequent than ulnar artery access.Complete wrist access strategy is safe and feasible for STEMI interventions with low mortality and MACE rate in unselected all-comers cohort.","PeriodicalId":86800,"journal":{"name":"Makedonski medicinski pregled. Revue medicale macedonienne","volume":"71 1","pages":"38 - 43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Makedonski medicinski pregled. Revue medicale macedonienne","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mmr-2017-0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Introduction. Being a default transradial access center we have encountered the need for alternative to the right radial artery. Determining the most frequent alternative access strategy for PCI in STEMI patientswasthe focus of our study. We sought to analyze whether the wrist access strategy impacts procedure time and success rate particularly for the STEMI interventions where time is of paramount importance. Methods. During four years, in our Center 2624 consecutive all-comers STEMI patients underwent urgent coronary intervention. TRA was used as the first-choice access strategy. We sought to assess crossover rate and safety of preferable access strategy. Crossover occurred according to the operator's decision. Primary outcomes were: access site crossover rate and In Lab time, secondary outcomes were PCI time, X-ray time, mortality and MACE at 30 days and at 6 months. Results. Overall crossover rate from default radial was 5.4% (144 out of 2624 patients). We treated 98.7% (2589) patients by wrist access and only 1.3% (35) patients with TFA. Crossover towards left radial occurred in 47.9% (69 out of 144 patients), towards ulnar 27.8% (40 patients) and towards TFA only 24.3% (35 patients). The meanIn-Lab time 40.4±17.7 minutes, PCI time was 21.4±7.4 min, X-ray time 9.2±4.7 minutes. Survival outcomes at 30 days were: MACE rate of 6.6% (174 patients), mortality rate of 5.0% (131 patients). At six months MACE rate was 8.6% and mortality rate was 5.6%. Conclusions. Default radial access is associated with alow crossover rate. Crossover towards femoral occurred less frequent than ulnar artery access.Complete wrist access strategy is safe and feasible for STEMI interventions with low mortality and MACE rate in unselected all-comers cohort.
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
急性心肌梗死介入治疗中右桡动脉默认通路的交叉选择
摘要介绍。作为一个默认的经桡动脉通路中心,我们遇到了替代右桡动脉的需要。确定STEMI患者最常见的PCI替代通路策略是我们研究的重点。我们试图分析手腕通路策略是否会影响手术时间和成功率,特别是对于时间至关重要的STEMI干预。方法。在我们中心的四年中,2624例连续的STEMI患者接受了紧急冠状动脉介入治疗。采用TRA作为首选访问策略。我们试图评估优选通路策略的交叉率和安全性。根据操作员的决定发生交叉。主要结局是:接诊部位交叉率和实验室时间,次要结局是PCI时间、x线时间、死亡率和30天和6个月时的MACE。结果。从默认径向的总体交叉率为5.4%(2624例患者中有144例)。我们治疗了98.7%(2589例)的患者,而只有1.3%(35例)的患者采用了TFA。144例患者中有69例(47.9%)发生左桡骨交叉,40例(27.8%)发生尺侧交叉,35例(24.3%)发生TFA交叉。平均in - lab时间40.4±17.7 min, PCI时间21.4±7.4 min, x线时间9.2±4.7 min。30天的生存结果为:MACE率为6.6%(174例),死亡率为5.0%(131例)。6个月时,MACE率为8.6%,死亡率为5.6%。结论。默认径向接入与允许交叉速率相关联。向股动脉交叉的频率低于尺动脉交叉。在未选择的所有患者队列中,完全手腕通路策略对于STEMI干预是安全可行的,死亡率和MACE率低。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hypertension after Kidney Transplantation Case Report of Feminizing Genital Reconstruction in a Female with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA) with Remifentanil Versus Intermittent Epidural Boluses for Labor Analgesia Intracerebral Hemorrhage and Epileptic Seizures: Frequency, Localization and Seizures Types Reactive Stroma in Prostatic Carcinoma and Correlation with Tumor Grade and Tumor Stage
×
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