Search

Background: In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with less bleeding and mortality than transfemoral access (TFA). However, patients in cardiogenic shock (CS) are more often treated via TFA. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of TRA vs. TFA in CS., Methods: Systematic review was performed querying PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov for studies comparing TRA to TFA in PCI for CS. Outcomes included in-hospital, 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, major and access site bleeding, TIMI3 (thrombolytics in myocardial infarction) flow, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects models., Results: Six prospective and eight retrospective studies (TRA, n = 8032; TFA, n = 23 031) were identified. TRA was associated with lower in-hospital (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.66, P < 0.0001), 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, as well as less in-hospital major (RR 0.41, 0.31-0.56, P < 0.001) and access site bleeding (RR 0.42, 0.23-0.77, P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences in post-PCI coronary flow grade, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume between TRA vs. TFA., Conclusions: In PCI for STEMI with CS, TRA is associated with significantly lower mortality and bleeding complications than TFA while achieving similar TIMI3 flow and procedural success rates., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aortic stenosis (AS) and regurgitation (AR) may be treated with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), transcatheter AVR (TAVR), or medical therapy (MT). Data are lacking regarding the usage of SAVR, TAVR, and MT for patients hospitalized with aortic valve disease and the characteristics of the patients and hospitals associated with each therapy. From the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we determined utilization trends for SAVR, TAVR, and MT in patients with aortic valve disease admitted from 2012 to 2016 for valve replacement, heart failure, unstable angina, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, or syncope. We also performed multinomial logistic regressions to investigate associations between patient and hospital characteristics and treatment. Among 366,909 patients hospitalized for aortic valve disease, there was a 48.1% annual increase from 2012 through 2016. Overall, 19.9%, 6.7%, and 73.4% of patients received SAVR, TAVR, and MT, respectively. SAVR decreased from 21.9% in 2012 to 18.5% in 2016, whereas TAVR increased from 2.6% to 12.5%, and MT decreased from 75.5% to 69.0%. Older age, female sex, greater severity of illness, more admission diagnoses, not-for-profit hospitals, large hospitals, and urban teaching hospitals were associated with greater use of TAVR. In multivariable analysis, likelihood of TAVR relative to SAVR increased 4.57-fold (95% confidence interval 4.21 to 4.97). TAVR has increased at the expense of both SAVR and MT, a novel finding. However, this increase in TAVR was distributed inequitably, with certain patients more likely to receive TAVR certain hospitals more likely to provide TAVR. With the expected expansion of indications, inequitable access to TAVR must be addressed., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)