Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Radial vs. Femoral Access in Emergency Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Prospective Study at Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar

被引:0
|
作者
Amin, Shafqat [1 ]
Saeed, Ihtisham [1 ]
Khan, Naeem [1 ]
Khan, Asad Ali [1 ,2 ]
Khan, Owais [1 ]
Din, Hafsa Nasir Ud [1 ]
机构
[1] MTI Hayatabad Med Complex, Peshawar, Pakistan
[2] Univ Hosp Birmingham NHS, Good Hope Hosp, Birmingham, England
来源
PAKISTAN HEART JOURNAL | 2025年 / 58卷 / 01期
关键词
Radial access; Femoral access; PCI; Emergency PCI; Complications; Mortality; MACE; Acute coronary syndrome;
D O I
10.47144/phj.v58i1.2859
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access in patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, from August 2023 to July 2024. Methodology: A prospective, observational study was conducted involving 250 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing emergency PCI. Of these, 175 patients received radial access and 75 received femoral access. Data were collected on patient demographics, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes, with primary outcomes focusing on complication rates, mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Statistical analysis included Chi-square and t-tests, with multivariate regression used to identify independent predictors of complications and mortality. Results: A total of 250 patients participated in the study, with 175 (70%) receiving radial access and 75 (30%) undergoing femoral access. Radial access was associated with a significantly lower complication rate (14%) compared to femoral access (30%), with a p-value of < 0.01. Procedure durations were similar between the two groups, with an average of 45.8 +/- 9.6 minutes for radial access and 47.1 +/- 10.3 minutes for femoral access. Fluoroscopy times were also comparable. In-hospital mortality was lower in the radial group (3%) than in the femoral group (7%), though this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.12). MACE rates were similar between the two groups, with no statistically significant differences (p = 0.58). Conclusion: Radial access demonstrated a significantly lower complication rate compared to femoral access, making it a safer alternative for emergency PCI. These findings suggest that radial access should be considered the preferred approach for emergency PCI, especially in resource-limited settings like Pakistan, where minimizing complications and improving recovery times are crucial for enhancing healthcare outcomes and operational efficiency.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Radial vs. femoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians
    Koutouzis, Michael
    Matejka, Goran
    Olivecrona, Goran
    Grip, Lars
    Albertsson, Per
    CARDIOVASCULAR REVASCULARIZATION MEDICINE, 2010, 11 (02) : 79 - 83
  • [2] RADIAL VS. FEMORAL ACCESS IN PATIENTS REFERRED FOR PRIMARY PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION: CHARACTERISTICS AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES
    Mansour, S.
    Bertrand, M. J.
    Stevens, L. M.
    Noiseux, N.
    Kokis, A.
    Masson, J. B.
    Gobeil, F.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2011, 27 (05) : S326 - S326
  • [3] Radial vs. Femoral Access in Patients Referred for Primary Percutaneous Coronary intervention: Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes
    Mansour, Samer
    Bertrand, Marie-Jeanne
    Stevens, Louis-Mathieu
    Noiseux, Nicolas
    Kokis, Andre
    Gobeil, Francois
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2011, 58 (20) : B141 - B141
  • [4] Radial vs. Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Artery Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
    Malik, Aaqib H.
    Yandrapalli, Srikanth
    Shetty, Suchith S.
    Zaid, Syed
    Athar, Ammar
    Aronow, Wilbert S.
    Timmermans, Robert J.
    Ahmad, Hasan
    Cooper, Howard A.
    Naidu, Srihari S.
    Panza, Julio A.
    CARDIOVASCULAR REVASCULARIZATION MEDICINE, 2021, 28 : 57 - 64
  • [5] Safety and Efficacy of Radial vs Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis
    Vidi, Venkatesan D.
    Ephrem, Georges
    Singh, Avneet
    Kim, Michael C.
    Jauhar, Rajiv
    Meraj, Perwaiz M.
    CIRCULATION, 2013, 128 (22)
  • [6] COMPARING THE SAFETY & EFFICACY OF RADIAL VERSUS FEMORAL ARTERIAL ACCESS IN CHRONIC TOTAL OCCLUSION PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION
    Tudor, Lloyd
    Mozid, Abdul
    HEART, 2022, 108 : A47 - A48
  • [7] Access for percutaneous coronary intervention in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: radial vs. femoral - a prospective, randomised clinical trial (OCEAN RACE)
    Koltowski, Lukasz
    Filipiak, Krzysztof J.
    Kochman, Janusz
    Pietrasik, Arkadiusz
    Rdzanek, Adam
    Huczek, Zenon
    Scibisz, Anna
    Mazurek, Tomasz
    Opolski, Grzegorz
    KARDIOLOGIA POLSKA, 2014, 72 (07) : 604 - 611
  • [8] Comparative Analysis of Right vs. Left Radial Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Impact on Silent Cerebral Ischemia
    Kara, Abdulkadir
    Soylu, Korhan
    Yildirim, Ufuk
    Uyanik, Muhammet
    Coksevim, Metin
    Avci, Bahattin
    MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, 2024, 60 (08):
  • [9] Design and rationale of the RadIal Vs. femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial: A randomized comparison of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes
    Jolly, Sanjit S.
    Niemela, Kari
    Xavier, Denis
    Widimsky, Petr
    Budaj, Andrzej
    Valentin, Vicent
    Lewis, Basil S.
    Avezum, Alvaro
    Steg, Philippe Gabriel
    Rao, Sunil V.
    Cairns, John
    Chrolavicius, Susan
    Yusuf, Salim
    Mehta, Shamir R.
    AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL, 2011, 161 (02) : 254 - +
  • [10] Effect Of BMI On The Bleeding Outcomes Following Radial vs. Femoral Access Percutaneous Coronary Interventions
    Bhumi, Sirish
    Vidi, Venkatesan D.
    Ephrem, Georges
    Singh, Avneet
    Kim, Michael C.
    Jauhar, Rajiv
    Meraj, Perwaiz
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2013, 62 (18) : B93 - B93