Radial versus femoral access site for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients suffering acute myocardial infarction

2017 ◽  
Vol 130 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 182-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiana Schernthaner ◽  
Matthias Hammerer ◽  
Stefan Harb ◽  
Matthias Heigert ◽  
Kurt Hoellinger ◽  
...  
2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörg Reifart ◽  
Stefan Göhring ◽  
Alexander Albrecht ◽  
Winfried Haerer ◽  
Benny Levenson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In 2015 and 2018, European Society of Cardiology guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) favoring radial access over femoral access were published. These recommendations were based on randomized trials suggesting that patients treated radially experienced reduced bleeding complications and all-cause mortality. We aimed to assess acceptance and results of radial access in a real-world scenario by analyzing all PCI cases in the Quality Assurance in Invasive Cardiology (QuIK) registry. Methods The QuIK registry prospectively collects data on all diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures from 148 private practice cardiology centers in Germany. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACE) were defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death during hospitalization. Results From 2012 to 2018, 189,917 patients underwent PCI via either access method. The rate of radial approach steadily increased from 13 to 49%. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to age or extent of coronary disease. Femoral approach was significantly more common in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Overall, there were significant differences in MACE (radial 0.12%; femoral 0.24%; p < 0.0009) and access site complications (radial 0.2%; femoral 0.8% (p < 0.0009). Conclusion Our data reveals an increase in use of radial access in recent years in Germany. The radial approach emerged as favorable regarding MACE in non-myocardial infarction patients, as well as favorable regarding access site complication regardless of indication for percutaneous intervention.


2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zuzana Kaifoszova ◽  
Petr Widimsky ◽  
◽  

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is recommended by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) treatment guidelines as the preferred treatment for ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) whenever it is available within 90–120 minutes of the first medical contact. A survey conducted in 2008 in 51 ESC countries found that the annual incidence of hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction is around 1,900 patients per million population, with an incidence of STEMI of about 800 per million. It showed that STEMI patients’ access to reperfusion therapy and the use of PPCI or thrombolysis (TL) vary considerably between countries. Northern, western and central Europe already have well-developed PPCI services, offering PPCI to 60–90 % of all STEMI patients. Southern Europe and the Balkans are still predominantly using TL. Where this is the case, a higher proportion of patients are left without any reperfusion treatment. The survey concluded that a nationwide PPCI strategy results in more patients being offered reperfusion therapy. To address the inequalities in STEMI patients’ access to life-saving PPCI, and to support the implementation of the ESC STEMI treatment guidelines in Europe, the Stent for Life (SFL) Initiative was launched jointly by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and EuroPCR in 2008. National cardiac societies from Bulgaria, France, Greece, Serbia, Spain and Turkey signed the SFL Declaration at the ESC Congress in Barcelona in 2009. The aim of the SFL Initiative is to improve the delivery of, and STEMI patients’ access to, life-saving PPCI and thereby reduce mortality and morbidity. Currently, 10 national cardiac societies support the SFL Initiative in their respective countries. SFL national action programmes have been developed and are being implemented in several countries. The formation of regional PPCI networks involving emergency medical services, non-percutaneous coronary intervention hospitals and PPCI centres is considered to be a critical success factor in implementing PPCI services effectively. This article describes examples of how SFL countries are progressing in implementing their national programmes, thus increasing PPCI penetration in Europe.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Proctor ◽  
Massoud A. Leesar ◽  
Arka Chatterjee

Thrombolytic therapy kick-started the era of modern cardiology but in the last few decades it has been largely supplanted by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as the go-to treatment for acute myocardial infarction. However, these agents remain important for vast populations without access to primary PCI and acute ischemic stroke. More innovative uses have recently come up for the treatment of a variety of conditions. This article summarizes the history, evidence base and current use of thrombolytics in cardiovascular disease.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document