Safety of the transradial approach to carotid stenting
Autor: | Young Erben, Donald Heck, Thomas G. Brott, Brajesh K. Lal, George Howard, John D. Sorkin, Kenneth Rosenfield, James F. Meschia, Minerva Mayorga-Carlin, Fayaz A Shawl |
---|---|
Rok vydání: | 2021 |
Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
medicine.medical_treatment Carotid endarterectomy Revascularization Asymptomatic Article Carotid artery disease medicine Clinical endpoint Humans Carotid Stenosis Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging Prospective Studies Stroke Aged Endarterectomy Carotid business.industry General Medicine Middle Aged medicine.disease Surgery Stenosis Treatment Outcome Female Stents Carotid stenting medicine.symptom Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine business |
Zdroj: | Catheter Cardiovasc Interv |
ISSN: | 1522-726X 1522-1946 |
DOI: | 10.1002/ccd.29912 |
Popis: | Background The multicenter prospective CREST-2 Registry (C2R) provides recent experience in performing carotid artery stenting (CAS) for interventionists to ensure safe performance of CAS. Objective To determine the periprocedural safety of CAS performed using a transradial approach relative to CAS performed using a transfemoral approach. Methods Patients with ≥70% asymptomatic and ≥50% symptomatic carotid stenosis, ≤80 years of age and at standard or high risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are eligible for the C2R. The primary endpoint was a composite of severe access-related complications. Comparisons were made using propensity-score matched logistic regression. Results The mean age of the cohort was 67.6 ± 8.2 years and 1906 (35.1%) were female. Indications for CAS included 4063 (74.9%) for primary atherosclerosis. A total of 2868 (52.8%) cases underwent CAS for asymptomatic disease. Transradial access was used in 213 (3.9%) patients. The transradial cohort had lower use of general anesthesia (1.5% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.007) and higher use of distal embolic protection (96.7% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.0004). There were no significant differences between radial and femoral access groups in terms of a composite of major access-related complications (0% vs. 1.1%) or a composite of periprocedural stroke or death (3.3% vs. 2.4%; OR = 1.4 [confidence intervals 0.6, 3.1]; p = 0.42). Conclusion We found no significant differences in rates of major access-related complications or periprocedural stroke or death with CAS performed using transradial compared to transfemoral access. Our results support incorporation of the transradial approach to clinical trials comparing CAS to other revascularization techniques. |
Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Externí odkaz: |