Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Procedural volume and outcomes with radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention

SS. Jolly, J. Cairns, S. Yusuf, K. Niemela, PG. Steg, M. Worthley, E. Ferrari, WJ. Cantor, A. Fung, N. Valettas, M. Rokoss, GK. Olivecrona, P. Widimsky, AN. Cheema, P. Gao, SR. Mehta, . ,

. 2014 ; 63 (10) : 954-63.

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc14063833

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach. BACKGROUND: RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) was a randomized trial of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention (N = 7,021), which overall did not show a difference in primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding. METHODS: In pre-specified subgroup analyses, the hazard ratios for the primary outcome were compared among centers divided by tertiles and among individual operators. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent effect of center and operator volumes after adjusting for other variables. RESULTS: In high-volume radial centers, the primary outcome was reduced with radial versus femoral access (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.87) but not in intermediate- (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.72) or low-volume centers (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.31; interaction p = 0.021). High-volume centers enrolled a higher proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). After adjustment for STEMI, the benefit of radial access persisted at high-volume radial centers. There was no difference in the primary outcome between radial and femoral access by operator volume: high-volume operators (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.28), intermediate (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27), and low (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; interaction p = 0.536). However, in a multivariable model, overall center volume and radial center volume were independently associated with the primary outcome but not femoral center volume (overall percutaneous coronary intervention volume HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96; radial volume HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97; and femoral volume HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07; p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Procedural volume and expertise are important, particularly for radial percutaneous coronary intervention. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273).

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc14063833
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20140710105117.0
007      
ta
008      
140704s2014 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.10.052 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)24269362
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Jolly, Sanjit S $u McMaster University and Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: sanjit.jolly@phri.ca.
245    10
$a Procedural volume and outcomes with radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention / $c SS. Jolly, J. Cairns, S. Yusuf, K. Niemela, PG. Steg, M. Worthley, E. Ferrari, WJ. Cantor, A. Fung, N. Valettas, M. Rokoss, GK. Olivecrona, P. Widimsky, AN. Cheema, P. Gao, SR. Mehta, . ,
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: The study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach. BACKGROUND: RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) was a randomized trial of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention (N = 7,021), which overall did not show a difference in primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding. METHODS: In pre-specified subgroup analyses, the hazard ratios for the primary outcome were compared among centers divided by tertiles and among individual operators. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent effect of center and operator volumes after adjusting for other variables. RESULTS: In high-volume radial centers, the primary outcome was reduced with radial versus femoral access (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.87) but not in intermediate- (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.72) or low-volume centers (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.31; interaction p = 0.021). High-volume centers enrolled a higher proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). After adjustment for STEMI, the benefit of radial access persisted at high-volume radial centers. There was no difference in the primary outcome between radial and femoral access by operator volume: high-volume operators (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.28), intermediate (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27), and low (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; interaction p = 0.536). However, in a multivariable model, overall center volume and radial center volume were independently associated with the primary outcome but not femoral center volume (overall percutaneous coronary intervention volume HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96; radial volume HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97; and femoral volume HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07; p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Procedural volume and expertise are important, particularly for radial percutaneous coronary intervention. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273).
650    _2
$a akutní koronární syndrom $x radiografie $x chirurgie $7 D054058
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a periferní katetrizace $x metody $x využití $7 D002406
650    _2
$a koronární angiografie $x metody $x využití $7 D017023
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a arteria femoralis $7 D005263
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a koronární angioplastika $x metody $7 D062645
650    _2
$a prognóza $7 D011379
650    _2
$a arteria radialis $7 D017534
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
700    1_
$a Cairns, John $u University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
700    1_
$a Yusuf, Salim $u McMaster University and Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
700    1_
$a Niemela, Kari $u Tampere University Hospital and Heart Center, Tampere, Finland.
700    1_
$a Steg, Philippe Gabriel $u Université Paris-Diderot, Paris, France.
700    1_
$a Worthley, Matthew $u University of Adelaide, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
700    1_
$a Ferrari, Emile $u Hopital Pasteur, Nice, France.
700    1_
$a Cantor, Warren J $u Southlake Regional Health Centre, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
700    1_
$a Fung, Anthony $u University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
700    1_
$a Valettas, Nicholas $u McMaster University and Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
700    1_
$a Rokoss, Michael $u McMaster University and Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
700    1_
$a Olivecrona, Goran K $u Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
700    1_
$a Widimsky, Petr $u Charles University, Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Cheema, Asim N $u St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
700    1_
$a Gao, Peggy $u McMaster University and Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
700    1_
$a Mehta, Shamir R $u McMaster University and Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
700    1_
$a ,
773    0_
$w MED00002964 $t Journal of the American College of Cardiology $x 1558-3597 $g Roč. 63, č. 10 (2014), s. 954-63
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24269362 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20140704 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20140710105409 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1031317 $s 862565
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2014 $b 63 $c 10 $d 954-63 $i 1558-3597 $m Journal of the American College of Cardiology $n J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. $x MED00002964
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20140704

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options