TY - JOUR
T1 - Trans-radial versus trans-femoral intervention for the treatment of coronary bifurcations
T2 - Results from coronary bifurcation stenting registry
AU - Chung, Seungmin
AU - Her, Sung Ho
AU - Song, Pil Sang
AU - Song, Young Bin
AU - Hahn, Joo Yong
AU - Choi, Jin Ho
AU - Lee, Sang Hoon
AU - Jang, Yangsoo
AU - Yoon, Jung Han
AU - Tahk, Seung Jea
AU - Park, Seung Jung
AU - Choi, Seung Hyuk
AU - Seung, Ki Bae
AU - Gwon, Hyeon Cheol
PY - 2013/3
Y1 - 2013/3
N2 - Trans-radial (TR) approach is increasingly recognized as an alternative to the routine use of trans-femoral (TF) approach. However, there are limited data comparing the outcomes of these two approaches for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. We evaluated outcomes ofTR and TF percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in this complex lesion. Procedural outcomes and clinical events were compared in 1,668 patients who underwent PCI for non-left main bifurcation lesions, according to the vascular approach, either TR (n = 503) or TF (n = 1,165). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardialinfarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) in all patients and in 424 propensity-score matched pairs of patients. There were no significant differences between TR and TF approaches for procedural success in the main vessel (99.6% vs 98.6%, P = 0.08) and side branches (62.6% vs 66.7%, P = 0.11). Over a mean follow-up of 22 months, cardiac death or MI (1.8% vs2.2%, P = 0.45), TLR (4.0% vs 5.2%, P = 0.22), and MACE (5.2% vs 7.0%, P = 0.11) did not significantly differ between TR and TF groups, respectively. These results were consistent after propensity score-matched analysis. In conclusion, TR PCI is a feasible alternative approach to conventional TF approaches for bifurcation PCI (clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00851526).
AB - Trans-radial (TR) approach is increasingly recognized as an alternative to the routine use of trans-femoral (TF) approach. However, there are limited data comparing the outcomes of these two approaches for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. We evaluated outcomes ofTR and TF percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in this complex lesion. Procedural outcomes and clinical events were compared in 1,668 patients who underwent PCI for non-left main bifurcation lesions, according to the vascular approach, either TR (n = 503) or TF (n = 1,165). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardialinfarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) in all patients and in 424 propensity-score matched pairs of patients. There were no significant differences between TR and TF approaches for procedural success in the main vessel (99.6% vs 98.6%, P = 0.08) and side branches (62.6% vs 66.7%, P = 0.11). Over a mean follow-up of 22 months, cardiac death or MI (1.8% vs2.2%, P = 0.45), TLR (4.0% vs 5.2%, P = 0.22), and MACE (5.2% vs 7.0%, P = 0.11) did not significantly differ between TR and TF groups, respectively. These results were consistent after propensity score-matched analysis. In conclusion, TR PCI is a feasible alternative approach to conventional TF approaches for bifurcation PCI (clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00851526).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875801321&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875801321&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3346/jkms.2013.28.3.388
DO - 10.3346/jkms.2013.28.3.388
M3 - Article
C2 - 23486858
AN - SCOPUS:84875801321
SN - 1011-8934
VL - 28
SP - 388
EP - 395
JO - Journal of Korean Medical Science
JF - Journal of Korean Medical Science
IS - 3
ER -