Temporal changes in radial access use, associates and outcomes in patients undergoing PCI using rotational atherectomy between 2007 and 2014: results from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society national database - 11/04/18
Abstract |
Aims |
Access site choice for cases requiring rotational atherectomy (PCI-ROTA) is poorly defined. Using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society PCI database, temporal changes and contemporary associates/outcomes of access site choice for PCI-ROTA were studied.
Methods and Results |
Data were analysed from 11,444 PCI-ROTA procedures performed in England and Wales between 2007 and 2014. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of access site choice and its association with outcomes.
Results |
For PCI-ROTA, radial access increased from 19.6% in 2007 to 58.6% in 2014. Adoption of radial access was slower in females, those with prior CABG, and in patients with chronic occlusive (CTO) or left main disease. In 2013/14, the strongest predictors of femoral artery use were age (OR 1.02, [1.005-1.036], P = .008), CTO intervention (OR 1.95, [1.209-3.314], P = .006), and history of previous CABG (OR 1.68, [1.124-2.515], P = .010). Radial access was associated with reductions in overall length of stay, and increased rates of same-day discharge. Procedural success rates were similar although femoral access use was associated with increased access site complications (2.4 vs. 0.1%, P < .001). After adjustment for baseline differences, arterial complications (OR 15.6, P < .001), transfusion (OR 12.5, P = .023) and major bleeding OR 6.0, P < .001) remained more common with FA use. Adjusted mortality and MACE rates were similar in both groups.
Conclusions |
In contemporary practice, radial access for PCI-ROTA results in similar procedural success when compared to femoral access but is associated with shorter length of stay, and lower rates of vascular complication, major bleeding and transfusion.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest for any authors, no relevant relationship with industry. |
Vol 198
P. 46-54 - avril 2018 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?