Safety and feasibility of transradial approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction

( views:104, downloads:0 )
Author:
YAN Zhen-xian(Department of Cardiology, Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China)
ZHOU Yu-jie(Department of Cardiology, Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China)
ZHAO Ying-xin(Department of Cardiology, Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China)
LIU Yu-yang(Department of Cardiology, Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China)
SHI Dong-mei(Department of Cardiology, Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China)
GUO Yong-he(Department of Cardiology, Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China)
CHENG Wan-jun(Department of Cardiology, Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China)
Journal Title:
CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL
Issue:
Volume 121, Issue 09, 2008
DOI:
Key Word:
transradial; transfemoral; percutaneous coronary intervention; acute myocardial infarction; elderly

Abstract: Background Transradial coronary intervention has been widely used because of its effects in lowering the incidence of complications in vascular access site and improving patient satisfaction compared to the femoral approach. This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of transradial approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Methods A total of 103 consecutive elderly patients (age≥65 years) who were diagnosed as having AMI were indicated for PCI. Among them, 57 patients received primary PCI via the transradial approach (transradial intervention, TRI group),and 46 underwent primary PCI via the transfemoral approach (transfemoral intervention, TFI group). The success rate of puncture, puncture time, cannulation time, reperfusion time, the total time for PCI, the success rate of PCI, the use rates of temporary pacemaker and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), and the total length of hospital stay of the patients in the two groups were compared. After the procedure, vascular access site complications and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the two groups in one month were observed.Results The success rates of puncture (98.2% vs 100.0%) and PCI (96.5% vs 95.7%) for the patients in the TRI and TFI groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The puncture time ((2.4±1.1) vs (2.0±0.9) minutes), cannulation time ((2.7±0.5) vs (2.6±0.5) minutes), reperfusion time ((16.2±4.5) vs (15.4±3.6) minutes), total time of the procedure ((44.1±6.8) vs (41.2±5.7) minutes), use rates of temporary pacemaker (1.8% vs 2.2%) and IABP (0 vs 2.2%) in the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05), but the hospital stay of the TFI group was longer than that of the TRI group ((10.1±4.6) VS (7.2±2.6) days, P<0.01). A radial occlusion was observed in the TRI group, but no ischemic syndrome in hand. In the TFI group, 4 patients had hematosis, 1 had pseudoaneurysm, and 1 had major bleeding.Statistical significance in vascular access site complications was seen in the two groups (1.8 % vs 13.1%, P<0.05). Three patients died in the two groups respectively in one month, and there was no statistical significance in MACE in the two groups (5.3% vs 6.5%, P>0.05).Conclusion The transradial approach for primary PCI is safe and feasible for elderly patients with AMI.

  • [1]Cheng CI,Wu CJ,Fang CY,Youssef AA,Chen CJ,Chen SM,et al.Feasibility and safety of transradial stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenoses.Circ J 2007; 71:855-861.
  • [2]Small A,Klinke P,Della Siega A,Fretz E,Kinloch D,Mildenberger R,et al.Day procedure intervention is safe and complication free in higher risk patients undergoing transradial angioplasty and stenting.The discharge study.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 70:907-912.
  • [3]Yang YJ,Xu B,Chen JL,Kang S,Qiao SB,Qin XW,et al.Comparison of immediate and followup results between transradial and transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in true bifureational lesions.Chin Med J 2007; 120:539-544.
  • [4]Sanmartin M,Cuevas D,Moxica J,Valdes M,Esparza J,Baz JA,et al.Transradial cardiac catheterization in patients with coronary bypass grafts:feasibility analysis and comparison with transfemoral approach.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;67:580-584.
  • [5]Gilchfist IC,Moyer CD,Gascho JA.Transradial fight and left heart catheterizations:a comparison to traditional femoral approach.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006; 67:585-588.
  • [6]Cantor WJ,Puley G,Natarajan MK; Dzavik V,Madan M,Fry A,et al.Radial versus femoral access for emergent percutancous coronary intervention with adjunct glycoprotein Ⅱb/Ⅲa inhibition in acute myocardial infarction-the RADIAL-AMI pilot randomized trial.Am Heart J 2005; 150:543-549.
  • [7]Kim JY,Yoon J,Jung HS,Ko JY,Yoo BS,Hwang SO,et al.Feasibility of the radial artery as a vascular access route in performing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Yonsei Med J 2005; 46:503-510.
  • [8]Cheng TO.Influence of learning curve on the success of transradial coronary angioplasty.Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn 1998; 45:215-216.
  • [9]Salgado Fernández J,Calvi(n)o Santos R,Váquez Rodríguez JM,Vázquez González N,Vázquez Rey E,Pérez Fernández R,et al.Transradial approach to coronary angiography and angioplasty:initial experience and learning curve.Rev Esp Cardiol 2003; 56:152-159.
  • [10]Louvard Y,Ludwig J,Lefèvre T,Schmeisser A,Brück M,Scheinert D,et al.Transradial approach for coronary angioplasty in the setting of acute myocardial infarction:a dual-center registry.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002; 55:206-211.
  • [11]Valsecchi O,Musumeci G,Vassileva A,Tespili M,Guagliumi G,Gavazzi A,et al.Safety,feasibility and efficacy of transradial primary angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction.Ital Heart J 2003; 4:329-334.
  • [12]Kim MH,Cha KS,Kim HJ,Kim SG,Kim JS.Primary stenting for acute myocardial infarction via the transradial approach:a safe and useful alternative to the transfemoral approach.J Invasive Cardiol 2000; 12:292-296.
  • [13]Cantor WJ,Puley G,Natarajan MK,Dzavik V,Madan M,Fry A,et al.Radial versus femoral access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention with adjunct glycoprotein Ⅱb/Ⅲa inhibition in acute myocardial infarction-the RADIAL-AMI pilot randomized trial.Am Heart J 2005; 150:543-549.
  • [14]Philippe F,Larrazet E Meziane T,Dibie A.Comparison of transradial vs transfemoral approach in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with primary angioplasty and ahciximab.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 61:67-73.
  • [15]Brasselet C,Tassan S,Nazeyrollas P,Hamon M,Metz D.Randomized comparison of femoral versus radial approach for pereutaneous coronary intervention using abxicimab in acute myocardial infarction:results of the FARMI Trial.Heart 2007;93:1556-1561.
  • [16]Floyd KC,Jayne JE,Kaplan AV,Friedman BJ,Niles NW,Hettleman BD,et al.Age-based differences of percutaneous coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stent era.J Interv Cardiol 2006; 19:381-387.
  • [17]Assali AR,Moustapha A,Sdfingola S,SaUoum J,Awadalla H,Saikia S,et al.The dilemma of success:percutaneous coronary interventions in patients 》 or = 75 years of age-successful but associated with higher vascular complications and cardiac mortality.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003; 59:195-199.
  • [18]Feldman DN,Gade CL,Slotwiner AJ,Parikh M,Bergman G,Wong SC,et al.Comparison of outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in patients of three age groups (from the New York State Angioplasty Registry).Am J Cardiol 2006;98:1334-1339.
  • [19]Blankenship JC,Hellkamp AS,Aguirre FV,Demko SL,Topol EJ,Califf RM,et al.Vascular access site complications after percutaneous coronary intervention with abciximab in the evaluation of c7E3 for the prevention of ischemic complications (EPIC) trial.Am J Cardiol 1998; 81:36-40.
  • [20]Goyen M,Manz S,Kroger K,Massalha K,Haude M,Rudofsky G.Interventional therapy of vascular complications caused by the hemostatic puncture closure device angio-seal.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2000; 49:142-147.
  • [21]Stiebellehner L,Nikfardjan M,Diem K,Atteneder M,Stulnig T,Priglinger U,et al.Manual compression versus mechanical compression device (FemoStop) after diagnostic coronary angiography with/without intervention.Wien Klin Wochenschr 2002; 114:847-852.
  • [22]Tron C,Koning R,Eltchaninoff H,Douillet R,Chassaing S,Sanchez-Giron C,et al.A randomized comparison of a percutaneous suture device versus manual compression for femoral artery hemostasis after PTCA.J Interv Cardiol 2003;16:217-221.
WanfangData CO.,Ltd All Rights Reserved
About WanfangData | Contact US
Healthcare Department, Fuxing Road NO.15, Haidian District Beijing, 100038 P.R.China
Tel:+86-010-58882616 Fax:+86-010-58882615 Email:yiyao@wanfangdata.com.cn