Transradial versus transfemoral intervention for acute myocardial infarction: a propensity score-adjusted and -matched analysis from the REAL (REgistro regionale AngiopLastiche dell'Emilia-Romagna) multicenter registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess whether transradial intervention, by minimizing access-site bleeding and vascular events, improves outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction compared with the transfemoral approach. BACKGROUND: Bleeding and consequent blood product transfusions have been causally associated with a higher mortality rate in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing coronary angioplasty. METHODS: We identified all adults undergoing percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction in Emilia-Romagna, a region in the north of Italy of 4 million residents, between January 1, 2003, and July 30, 2009, at 12 referral hospitals using a region-mandated database of percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Differences in the risk of death at 2 years between patients undergoing transfemoral versus transradial intervention, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis, were determined from vital statistics records and compared based on propensity score adjustment and matching. RESULTS: A total of 11,068 patients were treated for acute myocardial infarction (8,000 via transfemoral and 3,068 via transradial route). According to analysis of matched pairs, the 2-year, risk-adjusted mortality rates were lower for the transradial than for the transfemoral group (8.8% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.0250). The rate of vascular complications requiring surgery or need for blood transfusion were also significantly decreased in the transradial group (1.1% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.0052). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction, transradial treatment is associated with decreased 2-year mortality rates and a reduction in the need for vascular surgery and/or blood transfusion compared with transfemoral intervention.

Stent implantation in patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ischemic severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction are at higher risk for death. We assessed the outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with LV systolic dysfunction. METHODS: From April 1993 to March 2004 337 consecutive patients with LV ejection fraction (LVEF)

Early and mid-term results of drug-eluting stent implantation in unprotected left main.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention in unprotected left main (ULM) coronary arteries are still a matter of debate. METHODS AND RESULTS: All consecutive patients who had a sirolimus-eluting stent (Cypher, Cordis, Johnson and Johnson Co) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus, Boston Scientific) electively implanted in de novo lesions on unprotected left main were analyzed. Patients treated with a drug-eluting stent (DES) were compared with the historical group of consecutive patients treated with bare metal stent (BMS). Eighty-five patients were treated with DES; 64 had BMS implantation. Patients treated with DES had lower ejection fractions (51.1+/-11% versus 57.4+/-13%, P=0.002) and were more often diabetics (21.2% versus 10.9%, P=0.12) with more frequent distal left main involvement (81.2% versus 57.8%, P=0.003). Furthermore, in the DES group, smaller vessels (3.33+/-0.6 versus 3.7+/-0.7 mm, respectively; P=0.0001) with more lesions (2.94+/-1.6 versus 2.25+/-1.3, P=0.004) and vessels (2.03+/-0.69 versus 1.8+/-0.72, P=0.05) were treated with longer stents (24.3+/-12 versus 15.8+/-8.6 mm, P=0.0001). Despite the higher-risk patients and lesion profiles in the DES group, the incidence of major cardiac events at a 6-month clinical follow-up was lower in the DES than in the BMS group (20.0% versus 35.9%, respectively; P=0.039). Moreover, cardiac deaths occurred in 3 DES patients (3.5%), as compared with 6 (9.3%) in the BMS group (P=0.17). CONCLUSIONS: In this early experience with DES in unprotected left main, this procedure appears safe with favorable and improved clinical results as compared with historical control subjects with a BMS. A randomized study comparing surgery appears justified at present.