...
首页> 外文期刊>JACC. Cardiovascular interventions >A randomized comparison of the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary artery bypass graft angiography and intervention: The RADIAL-CABG Trial (RADIAL versus femoral access for coronary artery bypass graft angiography and intervention)
【24h】

A randomized comparison of the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary artery bypass graft angiography and intervention: The RADIAL-CABG Trial (RADIAL versus femoral access for coronary artery bypass graft angiography and intervention)

机译:经radi动脉和经股动脉冠状动脉搭桥血管造影和介入方法的随机比较:RADIAL-CABG试验(用于冠状动脉搭桥血管造影和介入的RADIAL与股动脉入路)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives This study sought to compare and contrast use and radiation exposure using radial versus femoral access during cardiac catheterization of patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Background Limited information is available on the relative merits of radial compared with femoral access for cardiac catheterization in patients who had previously undergone CABG surgery. Methods Consecutive patients (N = 128) having previously undergone CABG surgery and referred for cardiac catheterization were randomized to radial or femoral access. The primary study endpoint was contrast volume. Secondary endpoints included fluoroscopy time, procedure time, patient and operator radiation exposure, vascular complications, and major adverse cardiac events. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. Results Compared with femoral access, diagnostic coronary angiography via radial access was associated with a higher mean contrast volume (142 ± 39 ml vs. 171 ± 72 ml, p < 0.01), longer procedure time (21.9 ± 6.8 min vs. 34.2 ± 14.7 min, p < 0.01), greater patient air kerma (kinetic energy released per unit mass) radiation exposure (1.08 ± 0.54 Gy vs. 1.29 ± 0.67 Gy, p = 0.06), and higher operator radiation dose (first operator: 1.3 ± 1.0 mrem vs. 2.6 ± 1.7 mrem, p < 0.01; second operator 0.8 ± 1.1 mrem vs. 1.8 ± 2.1 mrem, p = 0.01). Fewer patients underwent ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the radial group (37.5% vs. 46.9%, p = 0.28) and radial PCI procedures were less complex. The incidences of the primary and secondary endpoints was similar with femoral and radial access among PCI patients. Access crossover was higher in the radial group (17.2% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.01) and vascular access site complications were similar in both groups (3.1%). Conclusions In patients who had previously undergone CABG surgery, transradial diagnostic coronary angiography was associated with greater contrast use, longer procedure time, and greater access crossover and operator radiation exposure compared with transfemoral angiography. (RADIAL Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Angiography and Intervention [RADIAL-CABG] Trial; NCT01446263).
机译:目的本研究旨在比较和比较先前接受过冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)的患者在心脏导管插入期间使用放射线和股动脉的使用和放射线照射与股骨入路的对比。背景对于以前接受过CABG手术的患者,在进行心脏导管插入术时,相对于fe动脉入路与fe股入路相比,其相对优势是有限的。方法连续接受CABG手术并转入心脏导管检查的连续患者(N = 128)被随机分配至radial骨或股骨入路。主要研究终点为造影剂体积。次要终点包括荧光检查时间,手术时间,患者和操作人员的放射线暴露,血管并发症以及主要的不良心脏事件。按意向进行分析。结果与股动脉入路相比,通过radial门入路进行诊断性冠状动脉造影具有更高的平均造影剂体积(142±39 ml vs. 171±72 ml,p <0.01),更长的手术时间(21.9±6.8 min vs. 34.2±14.7) min,p <0.01),更大的患者空气比释动能(每单位质量释放的动能)辐射暴露(1.08±0.54 Gy与1.29±0.67 Gy,p = 0.06),以及更高的操作者辐射剂量(第一个操作者:1.3±1.0 mrem vs.2.6±1.7 mrem,p <0.01;第二算子0.8±1.1 mrem vs. 1.8±2.1 mrem,p = 0.01)。 radial动脉组接受临时性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的患者较少(37.5%比46.9%,p = 0.28),radial动脉PCI的手术过程较简单。 PCI患者中主要终点和次要终点的发生率与股骨和radial骨入路相似。 radial骨治疗组的通透率更高(17.2%vs. 0.0%,p <0.01),两组的血管通路部位并发症相似(3.1%)。结论与经股动脉造影相比,先前接受过CABG手术的患者,经radi动脉诊断性冠状动脉造影与造影剂使用时间更长,手术时间更长,通路交叉和操作者放射线暴露有关。 (径向与股动脉入路用于冠状动脉旁路移植术血管造影和介入治疗[RADIAL-CABG]试验; NCT01446263)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号