These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison between transradial and transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
    Author: Ibebuogu UN, Cercek B, Makkar R, Dinh H, Kwarteng C, Mirocha J, Hussaini A, Singh S, Dohad S, Shah PK, Khorsandi M, Kar S.
    Journal: Am J Cardiol; 2012 Nov 01; 110(9):1262-5. PubMed ID: 22840847.
    Abstract:
    Transradial (TR) access is increasingly being used in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, its role in PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction remains controversial because of concerns of procedural complexity adversely affecting the promptness of reperfusion. In this study, 150 consecutive patients who underwent PCI for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction over a period of 24 months were prospectively evaluated; 46 had TR access (31%) and 104 (69%) had transfemoral (TF) access. All patients received thienopyridines, aspirin, and heparin per routine management. There were no significant differences between the TR access and TF access groups with respect to age (62.2 ± 11.6 vs 64.7 ± 14.1, p = 0.28), gender (76.1% vs 72.1% men, p = 0.69), or incidence of diabetes (23.9% vs 26.9%, p = 0.84). The TR and TF access groups were comparable with respect to door-to-balloon time (79.2 ± 32.3 vs 86.8 ± 51.8 minutes, p = 0.67) and amount of contrast used (190.5 ± 101.5 vs 172.2 ± 81.7 ml, p = 0.24). Total fluoroscopy time was longer in the TR access group compared to the TF access group (21.7 ± 12.7 vs 14.4 ± 10.4 minutes, p <0.0001). Postprocedural Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow was comparable for the 2 groups (87% for the TF group and 96% for the TR group, p = 0.15). There were no vascular complications in the TR access group compared to the TF access group (0% vs 5.8%, p = 0.18). In conclusion, this single-center observational study shows that TR access for PCI in STEMI is feasible and that it has fewer vascular complications and shorter length of hospital stay than the TF approach.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]