| ǥ :
|
ȣ - 540806 135 |
| Radial versus femoral approach in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions |
| 가톨릭대학교1, 성균관대학교2, 전남대학교3, 고려대학교4, 연세대학교5, 울산대학교6 |
| 서석민1, 김태훈1, 김찬준1, 고윤석1, 박훈준1, 이종민1, 김범준1, 장기육1, 정욱성1, 승기배1, 권현철2, 정명호3, 임도선4, 장양수5, 박승정6 |
Background: Transradial approach had been increasingly used as an alternative to femoral access. However there is limited data comparing these two approaches in coronary bifurcation lesions.
Methods: 1691 Patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-left main bifurcation lesions were enrolled from 16 centers in Korea between January 2004 and June 2006. Per operator choice, femoral access was utilized in 1173 patients (69.4%) and radial access in 518 patients (30.6%). We compared procedural success rate and major cardiac adverse events including death, myocardial infarction and unplanned revascularization.
Results: There was no significant difference in procedural success rate of main branch stenting (femoral vs. radial: 98.6 vs. 99.6, p=0.076) and side branch stenting (66.4 vs. 62.2, p=0.097). Over median 671 days, transradial approach was not associated with occurrence rate of major cardiac adverse events compared to femoral access.
Conclusion: Transradial approach may be an effective and safe alternative in treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions.
|
|
Comparison of major cardiac adverse events between the transradial approach and transfemoral approach
|
Transfemoral (n=1173) |
Transradial (n=518) |
P
value |
|
Death |
23 (2.0%) |
10 (1.9%) |
1.000 |
|
Myocardial infarction |
18 (1.5%) |
3 (0.6%) |
0.151 |
|
Target lesion revascularization |
60 (5.1%) |
20 (3.9%) |
0.320 |
|
Target vessel revascularization |
80 (6.8%) |
22 (4.2%) |
0.046 |
|
Composite of death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization |
145 (12.4%) |
64 (12.4%) |
1.000 |
|
|
|
