Radial Versus Femoral Approach for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

MACE e follow-up: tutti i pro e i contro dell'approccio radiale alla PCI. (J Invasive Cardiol. 2018 Jul;30(7):262-268)

4 July Jul 2018 7 years ago
  • Bartorelli A
QR Code

Little is known about the long-term major cardiovascular events and bleeding complications of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with radial vs femoral approach. Aim of this paper was to compare the main outcomes of radial versus femoral access at long-term follow-up, in a total of 1,107 patients from the CENTURY II trial.

Compared to the femoral approach, the radial approach is associated with significantly lower long-term all-cause mortality rate as well as lower in-hospital and short-term bleeding rates. These results suggest additional long-term benefits of radial access for PCI, but should be interpreted within the context of the current study and further verified in future studies.

Reference
1. Campelo-Parada F, Carrié D, Bartorelli AL, Namiki A, Hovasse T, Kimura T, Serra-Peñaranda A, Varenne O, Lalmand J, Kadota K, Ikari Y, Tobaru T, Fujii K, Nakamura S, Saito S, Wijns W; CENTURY II Investigators. Radial Versus Femoral Approach for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: MACE Outcomes at Long-Term Follow-up. J Invasive Cardiol 2018 Jul;30(7):262-268. Go to PubMed