Comparisons of Clinical and Procedural Outcomes between Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Korean Transradial Intervention Prospective Registry)

Young Hyo Lim, Yonggu Lee, Jinho Shin, Junghan Yoon, Seunghwan Lee, Seung Woon Rha, Jae Hwan Lee, Myung Ho Jeong, Byung Ryul Cho, Kyung Soo Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

As few studies have reported the impact of transradial interventions (TRIs) versus transfemoral interventions (TFIs) on percutaneous coronary interventions using real-world registry data, we compared the clinical and procedural outcomes between TRIs and TFIs in the Korean Transradial Intervention Prospective Registry. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions were consecutively registered from February 2014 to July 2014 in this multicenter registry. Composite events were evaluated for all-cause deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, and repeat revascularizations within 30 days. Nonlesion complications included access site complications and bleeding events. A total of 1,225 patients (232 for TFIs and 993 for TRIs) were analyzed. All-cause deaths and composite events were more frequent in the TFI group than in the TRI group. Procedure failures and nonlesion complications were also more frequent in the TFI group, whereas lesion complication rates were similar in the 2 groups. Procedure times were not different between the 2 groups, whereas fluoroscopy times were longer and contrast volumes were larger in the TFI group. However, in a propensity score-matched cohort, all-cause deaths, composite events, procedure failures, and lesion and nonlesion complications were not different between the 2 groups. In contrast, in the matched cohort, the procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and the contrast volumes were larger in the TFI group. In conclusion, TRI was as effective and safe as TFI in terms of short-term clinical outcomes, procedure success rates, and complication rates, whereas TRI was more effective for reducing procedure times and hazardous exposure to radiation and contrast media.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1272-1281
Number of pages10
JournalAmerican Journal of Cardiology
Volume117
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Apr 15

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Registries
Cause of Death
Fluoroscopy
Propensity Score
Contrast Media
Myocardial Infarction
Hemorrhage

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Lim, Young Hyo ; Lee, Yonggu ; Shin, Jinho ; Yoon, Junghan ; Lee, Seunghwan ; Rha, Seung Woon ; Lee, Jae Hwan ; Jeong, Myung Ho ; Cho, Byung Ryul ; Kim, Kyung Soo. / Comparisons of Clinical and Procedural Outcomes between Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Korean Transradial Intervention Prospective Registry). In: American Journal of Cardiology. 2016 ; Vol. 117, No. 8. pp. 1272-1281.
@article{a201a35d8dcb43c683f92dc3e8b2b0c4,
title = "Comparisons of Clinical and Procedural Outcomes between Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Korean Transradial Intervention Prospective Registry)",
abstract = "As few studies have reported the impact of transradial interventions (TRIs) versus transfemoral interventions (TFIs) on percutaneous coronary interventions using real-world registry data, we compared the clinical and procedural outcomes between TRIs and TFIs in the Korean Transradial Intervention Prospective Registry. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions were consecutively registered from February 2014 to July 2014 in this multicenter registry. Composite events were evaluated for all-cause deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, and repeat revascularizations within 30 days. Nonlesion complications included access site complications and bleeding events. A total of 1,225 patients (232 for TFIs and 993 for TRIs) were analyzed. All-cause deaths and composite events were more frequent in the TFI group than in the TRI group. Procedure failures and nonlesion complications were also more frequent in the TFI group, whereas lesion complication rates were similar in the 2 groups. Procedure times were not different between the 2 groups, whereas fluoroscopy times were longer and contrast volumes were larger in the TFI group. However, in a propensity score-matched cohort, all-cause deaths, composite events, procedure failures, and lesion and nonlesion complications were not different between the 2 groups. In contrast, in the matched cohort, the procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and the contrast volumes were larger in the TFI group. In conclusion, TRI was as effective and safe as TFI in terms of short-term clinical outcomes, procedure success rates, and complication rates, whereas TRI was more effective for reducing procedure times and hazardous exposure to radiation and contrast media.",
author = "Lim, {Young Hyo} and Yonggu Lee and Jinho Shin and Junghan Yoon and Seunghwan Lee and Rha, {Seung Woon} and Lee, {Jae Hwan} and Jeong, {Myung Ho} and Cho, {Byung Ryul} and Kim, {Kyung Soo}",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.01.020",
language = "English",
volume = "117",
pages = "1272--1281",
journal = "American Journal of Cardiology",
issn = "0002-9149",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "8",

}

Comparisons of Clinical and Procedural Outcomes between Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Korean Transradial Intervention Prospective Registry). / Lim, Young Hyo; Lee, Yonggu; Shin, Jinho; Yoon, Junghan; Lee, Seunghwan; Rha, Seung Woon; Lee, Jae Hwan; Jeong, Myung Ho; Cho, Byung Ryul; Kim, Kyung Soo.

In: American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 117, No. 8, 15.04.2016, p. 1272-1281.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparisons of Clinical and Procedural Outcomes between Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Korean Transradial Intervention Prospective Registry)

AU - Lim, Young Hyo

AU - Lee, Yonggu

AU - Shin, Jinho

AU - Yoon, Junghan

AU - Lee, Seunghwan

AU - Rha, Seung Woon

AU - Lee, Jae Hwan

AU - Jeong, Myung Ho

AU - Cho, Byung Ryul

AU - Kim, Kyung Soo

PY - 2016/4/15

Y1 - 2016/4/15

N2 - As few studies have reported the impact of transradial interventions (TRIs) versus transfemoral interventions (TFIs) on percutaneous coronary interventions using real-world registry data, we compared the clinical and procedural outcomes between TRIs and TFIs in the Korean Transradial Intervention Prospective Registry. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions were consecutively registered from February 2014 to July 2014 in this multicenter registry. Composite events were evaluated for all-cause deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, and repeat revascularizations within 30 days. Nonlesion complications included access site complications and bleeding events. A total of 1,225 patients (232 for TFIs and 993 for TRIs) were analyzed. All-cause deaths and composite events were more frequent in the TFI group than in the TRI group. Procedure failures and nonlesion complications were also more frequent in the TFI group, whereas lesion complication rates were similar in the 2 groups. Procedure times were not different between the 2 groups, whereas fluoroscopy times were longer and contrast volumes were larger in the TFI group. However, in a propensity score-matched cohort, all-cause deaths, composite events, procedure failures, and lesion and nonlesion complications were not different between the 2 groups. In contrast, in the matched cohort, the procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and the contrast volumes were larger in the TFI group. In conclusion, TRI was as effective and safe as TFI in terms of short-term clinical outcomes, procedure success rates, and complication rates, whereas TRI was more effective for reducing procedure times and hazardous exposure to radiation and contrast media.

AB - As few studies have reported the impact of transradial interventions (TRIs) versus transfemoral interventions (TFIs) on percutaneous coronary interventions using real-world registry data, we compared the clinical and procedural outcomes between TRIs and TFIs in the Korean Transradial Intervention Prospective Registry. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions were consecutively registered from February 2014 to July 2014 in this multicenter registry. Composite events were evaluated for all-cause deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, and repeat revascularizations within 30 days. Nonlesion complications included access site complications and bleeding events. A total of 1,225 patients (232 for TFIs and 993 for TRIs) were analyzed. All-cause deaths and composite events were more frequent in the TFI group than in the TRI group. Procedure failures and nonlesion complications were also more frequent in the TFI group, whereas lesion complication rates were similar in the 2 groups. Procedure times were not different between the 2 groups, whereas fluoroscopy times were longer and contrast volumes were larger in the TFI group. However, in a propensity score-matched cohort, all-cause deaths, composite events, procedure failures, and lesion and nonlesion complications were not different between the 2 groups. In contrast, in the matched cohort, the procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and the contrast volumes were larger in the TFI group. In conclusion, TRI was as effective and safe as TFI in terms of short-term clinical outcomes, procedure success rates, and complication rates, whereas TRI was more effective for reducing procedure times and hazardous exposure to radiation and contrast media.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958581224&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958581224&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.01.020

DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.01.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 26899492

AN - SCOPUS:84958581224

VL - 117

SP - 1272

EP - 1281

JO - American Journal of Cardiology

JF - American Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0002-9149

IS - 8

ER -