Author/Authors :
Takeshita، نويسنده , , Satoshi and Asano، نويسنده , , Hiroshi and Hata، نويسنده , , Tetsuya and Hibi، نويسنده , , Kiyoshi and Ikari، نويسنده , , Yuji and Kan، نويسنده , , Yoshifumi and Katsuki، نويسنده , , Takaaki and Kawasaki، نويسنده , , Tomohiro and Masutani، نويسنده , , Motomaru and Matsumura، نويسنده , , Toshiyuki and Premchand، نويسنده , , Rajendra K. and Rao، نويسنده , , Surya P. and Suzuki، نويسنده , , Takashi and Takahashi، نويسنده , , Akihiko and Takeda، نويسنده , , Ryuichi and Tanaka، نويسنده , , Shinji and Yamazaki، نويسنده , , Seiji and Yin، نويسنده , , Wei-Hsian and Yoshimachi، نويسنده , , Fuminobu and Saito، نويسنده , , Shigeru، نويسنده ,
Abstract :
The frequency of radial artery occlusion was compared between patients receiving 4Fr versus 6Fr transradial coronary interventions (TRIs) in an open-label randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00815997). The primary outcome measure was radial artery occlusion on the day after TRI. The secondary outcome measures were the procedural success, major advanced cardiac events, access site–related complications, procedural times, fluoroscopy times, and contrast dye usage. A total of 160 patients were included. The procedure was successful in 79 of 80 patients (99%) in both groups. Whereas the 4Fr group showed no access site–related complications, the 6Fr developed 5 (6%), including 3 radial artery occlusions and 2 bleedings (1 radial artery perforation and 1 massive hematoma; p = 0.02). Although the radial artery occlusion rate was lower in the 4Fr versus the 6Fr groups, the difference was not significant (0% vs 4%, p = 0.08). The mean hemostasis time was significantly shorter in the 4Fr than in the 6Fr groups (237 ± 105 vs 320 ± 238 minutes, p = 0.007). In conclusion, these findings suggest that 4Fr TRI may become a less invasive alternative to 6Fr TRI in treating coronary artery diseases.
