top banner image  

topleft corner image     top right corner image
 


bullet

     top nav image

     

J Am Coll Cardiol Intv, 2008; 1:379-386, doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2008.05.007
© 2008 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow View Related Cardiosource Journal Scan
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rao, S. V.
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, E. D.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rao, S. V.
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, E. D.

Clinical Research

Trends in the Prevalence and Outcomes of Radial and Femoral Approaches to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

A Report From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

Sunil V. Rao, MD, FACC*,*, Fang-Shu Ou, MS*, Tracy Y. Wang, MD, MS*, Matthew T. Roe, MD, MHS, FACC*, Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, FACC{dagger}, John S. Rumsfeld, MD, PhD, FACC{ddagger}, Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, FACC*

* The Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina
{dagger} Division of Cardiology, Oakland Kaiser Hospital, Oakland, California
{ddagger} Denver VA Medical Center, Denver, Colorado.

* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Sunil V. Rao, Durham VA Medical Center, 508 Fulton Street (111A), Durham, North Carolina 27705. (Email: sunil.rao{at}duke.edu).

Objectives: Our goal was to compare trends in the prevalence and outcomes of the radial and femoral approaches to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in contemporary clinical practice.

Background: There are few current data on the use and outcomes of the radial approach to PCI (r-PCI) in clinical practice.

Methods: Data from 593,094 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (606 sites; 2004 to 2007) were analyzed to evaluate trends in use and outcomes of r-PCI. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the adjusted association between r-PCI and procedural success, bleeding complications, and vascular complications. Outcomes in elderly patients, women, and patients with acute coronary syndrome were specifically examined.

Results: Although the proportion of r-PCI procedures has recently increased, it only accounts for 1.32% of total procedures (n = 7,804). Compared with the femoral approach, the use of r-PCI was associated with a similar rate of procedural success (adjusted odds ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.93 to 1.12]) but a significantly lower risk for bleeding complications (odds ratio: 0.42 [95% confidence interval: 0.31 to 0.56]) after multivariable adjustment. The reduction in bleeding complications was more pronounced among patients <75 years old, women, and patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndrome.

Conclusions: The use of r-PCI is rare in contemporary clinical practice, but it is associated with a rate of procedural success similar to the femoral approach and with lower rates of bleeding and vascular complications, even among high-risk groups. These results suggest that wider adoption of r-PCI in clinical practice may improve the safety of PCI.

Key Words: percutaneous coronary intervention • radial artery • outcomes

Abbreviations and Acronyms
  ACC = American College of Cardiology
  ACS = acute coronary syndrome
  f-PCI = femoral approach to percutaneous coronary intervention
  NCDR = National Cardiovascular Data Registry
  NSTE ACS = non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome
  PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention
  r-PCI = radial approach to percutaneous coronary intervention
  STEMI = ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction






 
   
 
home link current link search link archive link topics link cardiology careers link