1 / 16

Author Disclosure Information

The Radial Approach to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Is Associated With a Lower Risk for Complications Regardless of Radial Procedure Volume: A Report From the American College of Cardiology- National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

judah-mclaughlin
Download Presentation

Author Disclosure Information

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Radial Approach to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Is Associated With a Lower Risk for Complications Regardless of Radial Procedure Volume: A Report From the American College of Cardiology- National Cardiovascular Data Registry Sunil V. Rao MD FACC, Fang-Shu Ou MS, Tracy Y. Wang MD, Richard E. Shaw PhD, Ralph Brindis MD, John S. Rumsfeld MD PhD, Eric D. Peterson MD MPH

  2. Author Disclosure Information • Financial disclosure • None of the authors have financial disclosures related to this presentation • Unlabeled/unapproved uses disclosure • none

  3. Advantages & Disadvantages of Radial Approach • Disadvantages • Potentially steep learning curve • Not all patients are candidates (abnormal Allen’s Test) • Can be technically difficult (spasm, tortuosity, recurrent loop) • Potentially lower procedural success (less guide support) • Advantages1,2,3 • Potentially lower risk for bleeding and vascular complications • Patient comfort • Shorter procedure time (one catheter used for both the Right and Left Coronary Arteries) 1Mann T, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:572– 6. 2Louvard Y, et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2001;52:181–7. 3Kiemeneij F, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:1269 –75.

  4. Selected prior studies comparing femoral & radial approaches • Mann T, et. al. JACC 1998 • 142 ACS patients undergoing stenting randomized to radial vs. femoral approach • No difference in procedure success, but significantly lower access site complications (0% radial vs. 4% femoral, P<0.01) • Mann T, et. al. CCI 2000 • “Natural” randomization of 218 pts. to femoral with closure device vs. radial based on operator call schedule • No difference in procedure success but significantly lower access site complications, and higher rate of same-day ambulation with radial approach

  5. Limitations of prior studies • Small sample sizes • Generally involved experienced operators • Relatively older data

  6. Aims & Goals • To determine the variation in use of the radial approach to PCI in clinical practice • To compare the incidence of procedural complications between femoral and radial approaches to PCI in clinical practice • Bleeding and vascular outcomes • Procedural success

  7. CathPCI data • > 2,000,000 Patient Admissions • > 800,000 PCI procedures • 150,000 records a quarter • CathPCI averages include institutions who pass inclusion threshold criteria • Average Pass Rate is 92%+

  8. Methods • 305,425 PCI procedures in the CathPCI Registry (2004- 2006) analyzed to evaluate variation in use of radial approach to PCI (r-PCI) and outcomes across centers • Multivariable logistic regression with general estimating equation was used to evaluate the adjusted association between r-PCI use & procedural complications (procedural success, bleeding & vascular outcomes) • Definitions • Bleeding: Access site, Retroperitoneal, GI, GU, Other • Vascular: Access site occlusion, Peripheral embolization, Dissection, Pseudoaneurysm

  9. Results • r-PCI accounted for 1.33% of the total procedures (N=4,074) with marked variation in use across centers • Patients who underwent r-PCI had higher BMI & more often had peripheral vascular disease • Compared with f-PCI, r-PCI had longer fluoroscopy time (13.20 vs. 11.50 minutes, p<0.0001) but did not involve more contrast use)

  10. Results - r-PCI use across centers Rao SV, et al. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv. 2008;1;379-386

  11. Results - Unadjusted Radial N=4074 Femoral N=301351 P<0.001 P<0.0001 P=0.69 Rao SV, et al. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv. 2008;1;379-386

  12. Results - Complications by r-PCI volume Rao SV, et al. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv. 2008;1;379-386

  13. Results - Multivariable modeling (femoral PCI as reference) Unadjusted Adjusted for patient differences Adjusted for patient & procedure differences Lower risk for any complication 1.0 Higher risk for any complication Adjusted for center clustering in each model Rao SV, et al. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv. 2008;1;379-386

  14. Limitations • Observational non-randomized analysis • Reflects clinical practice • Unmeasured confounders may be present • The Results seen may be driven by high volume r-PCI operators at low r-PCI volume centers

  15. Conclusions • r-PCI use is infrequent overall and varies across centers • r-PCI is independently associated with a lower risk for bleeding and vascular complications • Adjusted for patient & procedure differences • Adjusted for clustering within centers • There is no significant difference between the two approaches with respect to procedural success

  16. Conclusions • Even at centers with relatively low use of r- PCI, complication rates are lower compared with the femoral approach • These contemporary data corroborate prior smaller studies and suggest that wider use of r-PCI can improve the safety of PCI

More Related