Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Invasive Cardiol ; 34(3): E237-E248, 2022 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35235530

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Transradial access for coronary angiography was observed to be superior to femoral access. Nevertheless, femoral artery access is still frequently used, especially in challenging subgroups with high procedural complexity, like patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). PURPOSE: We analyzed access-site choice and outcomes of CABG patients undergoing coronary catheterization in different clinical settings. METHODS: A total of 1206 consecutive CABG patients undergoing coronary angiography and intervention were included in this study. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared between transradial and transfemoral access. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of access-site choice. RESULTS: Coronary catheterization was performed via radial access in 753 patients (63.1%) and via femoral access in 442 patients (36.9%). During the study period, femoral artery utilization dropped from 55.2% to a minimum of 28.2% per year (P<.01). Short stature (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; P<.01), peripheral artery disease (OR, 1.42; P=.04), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (OR, 4.17; P<.001), ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (OR, 2.56; P=.01), and coexisting left and right internal mammary artery (LIMA/RIMA) bypass grafts (OR, 2.67; P<.001) were independently associated with femoral access-site choice. Study outcomes including access-site complications (4.3% vs 1.6%; P<.01) as well as short- and long-term mortality (30-day mortality: 6.8% vs 2.0%; hazard ratio, 3.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-6.70; P<.001) were more likely to occur with femoral access. Length of stay was shorter in the radial cohort (3.7 ± 5.1 days vs 5.3 ± 7.2 days; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Radial access appears to be favorable even in complex CABG patients. Although radial access was set as the standard vascular approach, femoral access was chosen in one-third of all patients. Independent predictors for femoral access were short stature, peripheral artery disease, acute settings like CPR and STEMI, as well as coexisting LIMA and RIMA grafts.


Asunto(s)
Cateterismo Periférico , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST , Cateterismo Periférico/efectos adversos , Angiografía Coronaria/efectos adversos , Puente de Arteria Coronaria/efectos adversos , Arteria Femoral/cirugía , Humanos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Arteria Radial , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/etiología , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...