曾在心导管检查中植入器械的桡动脉移植物患者的移植物通畅性和临床疗效。

IF 6.1 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-08 DOI:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.123.013739
Garry W Hamilton, James Theuerle, David Chye, Jayapadman Bhaskar, Siven Seevanayagam, Hannah Johns, Leonid Churilov, Julian Yeoh, Matias B Yudi, Louise Brown, Jaishankar Raman, David J Clark, David L Hare, Omar Farouque
{"title":"曾在心导管检查中植入器械的桡动脉移植物患者的移植物通畅性和临床疗效。","authors":"Garry W Hamilton, James Theuerle, David Chye, Jayapadman Bhaskar, Siven Seevanayagam, Hannah Johns, Leonid Churilov, Julian Yeoh, Matias B Yudi, Louise Brown, Jaishankar Raman, David J Clark, David L Hare, Omar Farouque","doi":"10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.123.013739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While transradial access is favored for cardiac catheterization, the radial artery (RA) is increasingly preferred for coronary artery bypass grafting. Whether the RA is suitable for use as a graft following instrumentation for transradial access remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive patients from 2015 to 2019 who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using both the left and right RAs as grafts were included. Instrumented RAs underwent careful preoperative assessment for suitability. The clinical analysis was stratified by whether patients received an instrumented RA graft (instrumented versus noninstrumented groups). Eligible patients with both instrumented and noninstrumented RAs underwent computed tomography coronary angiography to evaluate graft patency. The primary outcome was a within-patient paired analysis of graft patency comparing instrumented to noninstrumented RA grafts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1123 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, 294 had both the left and right RAs used as grafts and were included. There were 126 and 168 patients in the instrumented and noninstrumented groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were comparable. The rate of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years following coronary artery bypass grafting was 2.4% in the instrumented group and 5.4% in the noninstrumented group (hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.12-1.61]; <i>P</i>=0.19). There were 50 patients included in the graft patency analysis. At a median follow-up of 4.3 (interquartile range, 3.7-4.5) years, 40/50 (80%) instrumented and 41/50 (82%) noninstrumented grafts were patent (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.29-2.52]; <i>P</i>>0.99). No significant differences were observed in the luminal diameter or cross-sectional area of the instrumented and noninstrumented RA grafts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no evidence found in this study that RA graft patency was affected by prior transradial access, and the use of an instrumented RA was not associated with worse outcomes in the exploratory clinical analysis. Although conduits must be carefully selected, prior transradial access should not be considered an absolute contraindication to the use of the RA as a bypass graft.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN12621000257864.</p>","PeriodicalId":10330,"journal":{"name":"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Graft Patency and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Radial Artery Grafts Previously Instrumented for Cardiac Catheterization.\",\"authors\":\"Garry W Hamilton, James Theuerle, David Chye, Jayapadman Bhaskar, Siven Seevanayagam, Hannah Johns, Leonid Churilov, Julian Yeoh, Matias B Yudi, Louise Brown, Jaishankar Raman, David J Clark, David L Hare, Omar Farouque\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.123.013739\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While transradial access is favored for cardiac catheterization, the radial artery (RA) is increasingly preferred for coronary artery bypass grafting. Whether the RA is suitable for use as a graft following instrumentation for transradial access remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive patients from 2015 to 2019 who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using both the left and right RAs as grafts were included. Instrumented RAs underwent careful preoperative assessment for suitability. The clinical analysis was stratified by whether patients received an instrumented RA graft (instrumented versus noninstrumented groups). Eligible patients with both instrumented and noninstrumented RAs underwent computed tomography coronary angiography to evaluate graft patency. The primary outcome was a within-patient paired analysis of graft patency comparing instrumented to noninstrumented RA grafts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1123 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, 294 had both the left and right RAs used as grafts and were included. There were 126 and 168 patients in the instrumented and noninstrumented groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were comparable. The rate of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years following coronary artery bypass grafting was 2.4% in the instrumented group and 5.4% in the noninstrumented group (hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.12-1.61]; <i>P</i>=0.19). There were 50 patients included in the graft patency analysis. At a median follow-up of 4.3 (interquartile range, 3.7-4.5) years, 40/50 (80%) instrumented and 41/50 (82%) noninstrumented grafts were patent (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.29-2.52]; <i>P</i>>0.99). No significant differences were observed in the luminal diameter or cross-sectional area of the instrumented and noninstrumented RA grafts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no evidence found in this study that RA graft patency was affected by prior transradial access, and the use of an instrumented RA was not associated with worse outcomes in the exploratory clinical analysis. Although conduits must be carefully selected, prior transradial access should not be considered an absolute contraindication to the use of the RA as a bypass graft.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN12621000257864.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.123.013739\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.123.013739","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然经桡动脉入路是心导管检查的首选,但桡动脉(RA)越来越多地成为冠状动脉旁路移植术的首选。经桡动脉入路器械操作后,桡动脉是否适合用作移植物仍不确定:方法:纳入 2015 年至 2019 年接受冠状动脉旁路移植术的连续患者,这些患者同时使用左侧和右侧 RA 作为移植物。术前对带器械的 RA 进行了仔细的适用性评估。临床分析根据患者是否接受器械RA移植物(器械组和非器械组)进行分层。符合条件的有器械和无器械 RA 患者均接受了计算机断层扫描冠状动脉造影术,以评估移植物的通畅性。主要结果是对有器械和无器械RA移植物的移植物通畅性进行患者内配对分析:在接受冠状动脉旁路移植手术的 1123 名患者中,有 294 名患者的左侧和右侧 RA 均被用作移植物。有器械组和无器械组分别有126名和168名患者。基线特征和围手术期结果具有可比性。冠状动脉旁路移植术后2年,有器械组的主要心脏不良事件发生率为2.4%,无器械组为5.4%(危险比为0.44 [95% CI, 0.12-1.61];P=0.19)。有 50 名患者纳入了移植物通畅性分析。在中位随访 4.3(四分位间范围,3.7-4.5)年时,40/50(80%)个植入器械的移植物和 41/50(82%)个未植入器械的移植物通畅(几率比,0.86 [95% CI,0.29-2.52];P>0.99)。在有器械和无器械 RA 移植物的管腔直径或横截面积方面没有观察到明显差异:本研究中没有证据表明 RA 移植的通畅性会受到之前经桡动脉入路的影响,而且在探索性临床分析中,使用带器械的 RA 与较差的预后无关。虽然导管的选择必须谨慎,但先前的经桡动脉入路不应被视为使用RA作为旁路移植的绝对禁忌症:URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; 唯一标识符:ACTRN12621000257864。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Graft Patency and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Radial Artery Grafts Previously Instrumented for Cardiac Catheterization.

Background: While transradial access is favored for cardiac catheterization, the radial artery (RA) is increasingly preferred for coronary artery bypass grafting. Whether the RA is suitable for use as a graft following instrumentation for transradial access remains uncertain.

Methods: Consecutive patients from 2015 to 2019 who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using both the left and right RAs as grafts were included. Instrumented RAs underwent careful preoperative assessment for suitability. The clinical analysis was stratified by whether patients received an instrumented RA graft (instrumented versus noninstrumented groups). Eligible patients with both instrumented and noninstrumented RAs underwent computed tomography coronary angiography to evaluate graft patency. The primary outcome was a within-patient paired analysis of graft patency comparing instrumented to noninstrumented RA grafts.

Results: Of the 1123 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, 294 had both the left and right RAs used as grafts and were included. There were 126 and 168 patients in the instrumented and noninstrumented groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were comparable. The rate of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years following coronary artery bypass grafting was 2.4% in the instrumented group and 5.4% in the noninstrumented group (hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.12-1.61]; P=0.19). There were 50 patients included in the graft patency analysis. At a median follow-up of 4.3 (interquartile range, 3.7-4.5) years, 40/50 (80%) instrumented and 41/50 (82%) noninstrumented grafts were patent (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.29-2.52]; P>0.99). No significant differences were observed in the luminal diameter or cross-sectional area of the instrumented and noninstrumented RA grafts.

Conclusions: There was no evidence found in this study that RA graft patency was affected by prior transradial access, and the use of an instrumented RA was not associated with worse outcomes in the exploratory clinical analysis. Although conduits must be carefully selected, prior transradial access should not be considered an absolute contraindication to the use of the RA as a bypass graft.

Registration: URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN12621000257864.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
221
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, an American Heart Association journal, focuses on interventional techniques pertaining to coronary artery disease, structural heart disease, and vascular disease, with priority placed on original research and on randomized trials and large registry studies. In addition, pharmacological, diagnostic, and pathophysiological aspects of interventional cardiology are given special attention in this online-only journal.
期刊最新文献
Stroke Prevention With Prophylactic Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Cardiac Surgery Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Propensity-Score Studies. Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: The Evidence Is Mounting. Microvascular Resistance Reserve Predicts Myocardial Ischemia and Response to Therapy in Patients With Angina and Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries. Enhancing Guidewire Efficacy for Trans-radial Access: The EAGER Randomized Controlled Trial. Correction to: Consensus Statement on the Management of Nonthrombotic Iliac Vein Lesions From the VIVA Foundation, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society.
×
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