Radial versus femoral approach comparison in percutaneous coronary intervention with intraaortic balloon pump support: The RADIAL PUMP UP Registry - 22/11/13
, Maria De Vita, MD c, Francesco Burzotta, MD, PhD d, Bernardo Cortese, MD e, Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai, MD f, Francesco Summaria, MD a, Roberto Patrizi, MD a, Chiara Lanzillo, MD a, Valerio Lucci, MD, PhD b, Caterina Cavazza, MD c, Fabio Tarantino, MD c, Giuseppe M. Sangiorgi, MD g, Ernesto Lioy, MD a, Filippo Crea, MD d, Sunil V. Rao, MD h, Carlo Trani, MD dRésumé |
Background |
The role of intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in high-risk acute patients remains debated. Device-related complications and the more complex patient management could explain such lack of clinical benefit. We aimed to assess the impact of transradial versus transfemoral access for PCI requiring IABP support on vascular complications and clinical outcome.
Methods |
We retrospectively analyzed 321 consecutive patients receiving IABP support during transfemoral (n = 209) or transradial (n = 112) PCI. Thirty-day net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (composite of postprocedural bleeding, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stroke) were the primary end point, with access-related bleeding and hospital stay as secondary end points.
Results |
Cardiogenic shock and hemodynamic instability were the most common indications for IABP support. Cumulative 30-day NACE rate was 50.2%, whereas an access site–related bleeding occurred in 14.3%. Patients undergoing transfemoral PCI had a higher unadjusted rate of NACEs when compared with the transradial group (57.4% vs 36.6%, P < .01), mainly due more access-related bleedings (18.7% vs 6.3%, P < .01). Such increased risk of NACEs was confirmed after propensity score adjustment (hazard ratio 0.57 [0.4-0.9], P = .007), whereas hospital stay appeared comparable in the 2 groups.
Conclusions |
In this observational registry, high-risk patients undergoing PCI and requiring IABP support appeared to have fewer NACEs if transradial access was used instead of transfemoral, mainly due to fewer access-related bleedings. Given the inherent limitations of this retrospective work, including the inability to adjust for unknown confounders, further controlled studies are warranted to confirm or refute these findings.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, MB, ChB, DPhil, served as guest editor for this article. |
Vol 166 - N° 6
P. 1019-1026 - décembre 2013 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Quantitative angiography and optical coherence tomography for the functional assessment of nonobstructive coronary stenoses: Comparison with fractional flow reserve
- Stylianos A. Pyxaras, Shengxian Tu, Emanuele Barbato, Giulia Barbati, Luigi Di Serafino, Frederic De Vroey, Gabor Toth, Fabio Mangiacapra, Gianfranco Sinagra, Bernard De Bruyne, Johan H.C. Reiber, William Wijns
- Prognostic implications of procedural vs spontaneous myocardial infarction: Results from the Evaluation of Drug Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events (EVENT) registry
- Sripal Bangalore, Michael J. Pencina, Neal S. Kleiman, David J. Cohen
Bienvenue 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 ?