Gender Disparity in the Safety and Efficacy of Radial and Femoral Access for Coronary Intervention

Huang, Fang‐Yang; Huang, Bao‐Tao; Wang, Pengju; Zhang, Chen; Zuo, Zhi‐Liang; Liao, Yanbiao; Xia, Tianli; Gui, Yi‐Yue; Peng, Yong; Liu, Wei; Chen, Mao; Zhu, Ye

doi:10.1177/0003319715621164

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They conclude that TR intervention may improve the safety and efficacy of outcomes in both genders. 20 The SAFE-PCI for Women also concludes same results. 21 In a Meta-analysis and Subgroup analysis when comparing radial to femoral access for CA and PCI, elderly patients (>75 years) had more crossover rate from radial approach fewer vascular complications.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Transradial artery approach in STEMI patients reperfused early and late by either primary PCI or pharmaco-invasive approach

Sultan

Rabea

abdelmeguid

et al. 2018

The Egyptian Heart Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HighlightsThere was a non-significant difference regarding LVEF and TIMI flow between both PPCI and PI.Myocardium wall preservation was significant in early PI (P = 0.023)Mean procedural and fluoroscopic time were 35.1 ± 6.1 and 6.3 ± 0.9 min.No reported entry site complications also no difference in primary end point (P = 0.326).It is safe and effective to use TRA in STEMI patients who reperfused by either early or late PPCI or PI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Transradial artery approach in STEMI patients reperfused early and late by either primary PCI or pharmaco-invasive approach

Sultan

Rabea

abdelmeguid

et al. 2018

The Egyptian Heart Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This may relate to sex differences in responsiveness to antiplatelet and other therapies [28]. Increase in radial access mitigates bleeding risks in women as for men [29, 30] but higher levels of cross-over to the femoral approach in women has been noted in studies, which may therefore contribute to higher periprocedural risk [31]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistent sex disparities in clinical outcomes with percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from 6.6 million PCI procedures in the United States

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrior studies have reported inconsistencies in the baseline risk profile, comorbidity burden and their association with clinical outcomes in women compared to men. More importantly, there is limited data around the sex differences and how these have changed over time in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice.Methods and resultsWe used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to identify all PCI procedures based on ICD-9 procedure codes in the United States between 2004–2014 in adult patients. Descriptive statistics were used to describe sex-based differences in baseline characteristics and comorbidity burden of patients. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to investigate the association between these differences and in-hospital mortality, complications, length of stay and total hospital charges. Among 6,601,526 patients, 66% were men and 33% were women. Women were more likely to be admitted with diagnosis of NSTEMI (non-ST elevation acute myocardial infarction), were on average 5 years older (median age 68 compared to 63) and had higher burden of comorbidity defined by Charlson score ≥3. Women also had higher in-hospital crude mortality (2.0% vs 1.4%) and any complications compared to men (11.1% vs 7.0%). These trends persisted in our adjusted analyses where women had a significant increase in the odds of in-hospital mortality men (OR 1.20 (95% CI 1.16,1.23) and major bleeding (OR 1.81 (95% CI 1.77,1.86).ConclusionIn this national unselected contemporary PCI cohort, there are significant sex-based differences in presentation, baseline characteristics and comorbidity burden. These differences do not fully account for the higher in-hospital mortality and procedural complications observed in women.

show abstract

“…6 As a result, the transradial approach in general is considered to be safer than the transfemoral approach with an extremely low incidence of complications that were even trivialized in the literature. 12-15 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central Vascular Complications Following Elective Catheterization Using Transradial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Merkle

Hohmann

Sabashnikov

et al. 2017

Journal of Investigative Medicine High Impact Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Percutaneous coronary intervention is commonly used to treat coronary artery disease. Both transradial and transfemoral approaches are applied. In general, fewer complications are seen with the transradial approach compared to the transfemoral access, for which reason the transradial catheterization is frequently preferred. In this case presentation, we describe 2 cases of elective transradial coronary angiography both resulting in severe central vascular complications: perforation of the right subclavian artery with a mediastinal hematoma and dissection of the brachio-cephalic trunk and the aortic arch. Although the transradial access is generally considered safe, severe complications such as artery dissection or perforation can occur even in cases of elective procedures.

show abstract

Gender Disparity in the Safety and Efficacy of Radial and Femoral Access for Coronary Intervention

Cited by 18 publications

References 34 publications

Transradial artery approach in STEMI patients reperfused early and late by either primary PCI or pharmaco-invasive approach

Transradial artery approach in STEMI patients reperfused early and late by either primary PCI or pharmaco-invasive approach

Persistent sex disparities in clinical outcomes with percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from 6.6 million PCI procedures in the United States

Central Vascular Complications Following Elective Catheterization Using Transradial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About