• Toshiharu Fujii, Naoki Masuda, Takeshi Ijichi, Yoshinari Kamiyama, Shigemitsu Tanaka, Gaku Nakazawa, Norihiko Shinozaki, Takashi Matsukage, Nobuhiko Ogata, and Yuji Ikari.
• Division of Cardiology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan.
• Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jan 1; 83 (1): E1-7.

ObjectivesTo compare clinical outcomes between transradial (TRI) and transfemoral intervention (TFI) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with or without shock.BackgroundTRI for STEMI has benefits in TRI high volume centers. However, TRI has not been reported for STEMI with shock even in such centers.MethodsWe retrospectively studied 425 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI. Patients were divided into four groups according to approach site and presence of cardiogenic shock, including TRI without shock (TR group, n = 273), TRI with shock (TRS group, n = 38), TFI without shock (TF group, n = 71), and TFI with shock (TFS group, n = 43).ResultsPCI success rates were similar among the four groups. The TR group was superior to the TF group in terms of shorter cath lab to first device activation time, and lower access site complications, and 30-day mortality rates (1.1% vs. 11.3%, P < 0.001). In shock patients, cardiopulmonary arrest was commonly observed in both the TRS and TFS groups (42.1% and 51.2%, respectively). The TRS group showed a trend toward a shorter door to first device activation time compared to the TFS group and lower access site complications; however, 30-day mortality rate was 28.9% in TRS and 25.6% in TFS group (P = 0.7).ConclusionsIn TRI high volume center, TRI for STEMI was safe and feasible as a default approach. TRI could be applied to severe shock patients with similar clinical outcome to TFI.Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

39 keywords...

hide…