4.6 Article

A Registry-Based Randomized Trial Comparing Radial and Femoral Approaches in Women Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention The SAFE-PCI for Women (Study of Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women) Trial

期刊

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
卷 7, 期 8, 页码 857-867

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.04.007

关键词

PCI; radial approach; women and heart disease

资金

  1. Abbott Vascular
  2. Medtronic Vascular [A 1054367]
  3. Terumo Medical
  4. Medicines Company
  5. Daiichi Sankyo/Eli Lilly and Company [H7T-US- X014]
  6. ACIST Medical, Guerbet
  7. FDA Office of Women's Health [HHSF223201111381P]
  8. Duke Clinical Research Institute
  9. Medtronic
  10. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  11. Sanofi-Aventis
  12. Eli Lilly & Co./Daiichi Sankyo
  13. Regado Biosciences
  14. STENTYS
  15. Merck
  16. Portola Pharma
  17. Terumo
  18. AstraZeneca
  19. Lilly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the effect of radial access on outcomes in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using a registry-based randomized trial. BACKGROUND Women are at increased risk of bleeding and vascular complications after PCI. The role of radial access in women is unclear. METHODS Women undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI were randomized to radial or femoral arterial access. Data from the CathPCI Registry and trial-specific data were merged into a final study database. The primary efficacy endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding or vascular complications requiring intervention. The primary feasibility endpoint was access site crossover. The primary analysis cohort was the subgroup undergoing PCI; sensitivity analyses were conducted in the total randomized population. RESULTS The trial was stopped early for a lower than expected event rate. A total of 1,787 women (691 undergoing PCI) were randomized at 60 sites. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint between radial or femoral access among women undergoing PCI (radial 1.2% vs. 2.9% femoral, odds ratio [OR]: 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12 to 1.27); among women undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI, radial access significantly reduced bleeding and vascular complications (0.6% vs. 1.7%; OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90). Access site crossover was significantly higher among women assigned to radial access (PCI cohort: 6.1% vs. 1.7%; OR: 3.65; 95% CI: 1.45 to 9.17); total randomized cohort: (6.7% vs. 1.9%; OR: 3.70; 95% CI: 2.14 to 6.40). More women preferred radial access. CONCLUSIONS In this pragmatic trial, which was terminated early, the radial approach did not significantly reduce bleeding or vascular complications in women undergoing PCI. Access site crossover occurred more often in women assigned to radial access. (C) 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据