Relation of Operator Volume and Access Site to Short-Term Mortality in Radial Versus Femoral Access for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

被引:0
|
作者
Hannan, Edward L. [1 ]
Zhong, Ye [1 ]
Ling, Frederick S. K. [2 ]
LeMay, Michel [3 ]
Jacobs, Alice K. [4 ]
King, Spencer B., III [5 ]
Berger, Peter B.
Venditti, Ferdinand J. [6 ]
Walford, Gary [7 ]
Tamis-Holland, Jacqueline [8 ]
机构
[1] SUNY Albany, Albany, NY 12222 USA
[2] Univ Rochester, Med Ctr, Rochester, NY 14642 USA
[3] Univ Ottawa, Heart Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[4] Boston Med Ctr, Boston, MA USA
[5] Emory Hlth Syst, Atlanta, GA USA
[6] Albany Med Ctr, Albany, NY USA
[7] Johns Hopkins Med Ctr, XXX, New York, NY USA
[8] Mt Sinai St Lukes Hosp, New York, NY USA
来源
关键词
ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; ARTERY ACCESS; CARDIAC-CATHETERIZATION; ANGIOGRAPHY; OUTCOMES; PREDICT; COST;
D O I
10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.04.025
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
The relation between operator volume and mortality of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) procedures for ST-elevation myocardial infarction has not been studied comprehensively. This study included patients who underwent PPCI between 2010 and 2017 in all nonfederal hospitals approved to perform PCI in New York State. We compared risk-adjusted in-hospital/30-day mortality for radial access (RA) and femoral access (FA) and the relation between risk-adjusted mortality and procedure volume for each access site. In 44,540 patients in the study period, the use of RA rose from 8% in 2,010% to 43% in 2017 (p <0.0001). There was no significant change in PPCI risk-adjusted mortality during the period (p=0.27 for trend). RA was associated with lower mortality when imposing operator exclusion criteria used in recent trials. There was a significant operator inverse volume-mortality relation for FA procedures but not for RA procedures. FA procedures performed by lower volume FA operators (lowest quartile) were associated with higher risk-adjusted mortality compared with RA procedures (3.71% vs 3.06%, p = 0.01) or compared with FA procedures performed by higher volume FA operators (3.71% vs 3.16% , p = 0.01). In conclusion, in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction referred for primary PCI in New York State, there was a significant uptake in the use of RA along with relatively constant in-hospital/30-day mortality. There was a significant inverse operator volume-mortality relation for FA procedures accompanied by higher mortality for FA procedures performed by low volume FA operators than for all other primary PCI procedures. In conclusion, this information underscores the need for operators to remain vigilant in maintaining FA skills and monitoring FA outcomes. (C) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:30 / 36
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Percutaneous coronary intervention using radial access is associated with less radiation exposure to patients compared with femoral access
    Kunadian, V.
    Morley, R.
    Adam, Z.
    Muir, D.
    Sutton, A.
    Wright, R.
    Hall, J.
    Carter, J.
    Swanson, N.
    De Belder, M.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2011, 32 : 408 - 408
  • [42] 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
  • [43] Efficacy of Radial Versus Femoral Access in the Acute Coronary Syndrome Is It the Operator or the Operation That Matters?
    Rao, Sunil V.
    Nolan, James
    Fraser, Douglas G.
    Mamas, Mamas A.
    Bertrand, Olivier F.
    Pancholy, Samir B.
    Bernat, Ivo
    Dharma, Surya
    Kedev, Sasko
    Jolly, Sanjit S.
    Valgimigli, Marco
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2016, 9 (09) : 978 - 979
  • [44] Efficacy of Radial Versus Femoral Access in the Acute Coronary Syndrome Is it the Operator or the Operation That Matters?
    Le May, Michel R.
    Singh, Kuljit
    Wells, George A.
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2015, 8 (11) : 1405 - 1409
  • [45] Transradial versus transfemoral vascular access in primary percutaneous coronary intervention
    Kovacevic, M.
    Petrovic, M.
    Jandric, V. Blagojevic
    Vulin, A.
    Ivanov, I.
    Cankovic, M.
    Ivanovic, V.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR NURSING, 2017, 16 : S37 - S37
  • [46] Radial artery access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention
    Archbold, RA
    Robinson, NM
    Schilling, R
    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2004, 329 (7463): : 443 - 446B
  • [47] 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 - +
  • [48] Radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with chronic total occlusion
    Ferrante, G.
    Louvard, Y.
    Hayashida, K.
    Benamer, H.
    Hovasse, T.
    Unterseeh, T.
    Garot, P.
    Lefevre, T.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2012, 33 : 386 - 386
  • [49] Radial Versus Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Patients With Chronic Total Occlusion
    Ferrante, Giuseppe
    Louvard, Yves
    Hayashida, Kentaro
    Benamer, Hakim
    Hovasse, Thomas
    Unterseeh, Thierry
    Garot, Philippe
    Lefevre, Thierry
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2012, 60 (17) : B128 - B128
  • [50] Barriers to use of radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention
    Riangwiwat, Tanawan
    Mumtaz, Tayebah
    Blankenship, James C.
    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2020, 96 (02) : 268 - 273