T. Mann et al., Transradial coronary stenting: Comparison with femoral access closed with an arterial suture device, CATHET C IN, 49(2), 2000, pp. 150-156
The purpose of this study was to determine if closure of the femoral artery
access site using a percutaneous arterial suture device (Perclose, Menlo P
ark, CA) in patients undergoing coronary stenting can result in the same be
nefits as seen with radial artery access. A total of 218 consecutive patien
ts underwent coronary stenting (109 femoral, 109 radial) by investigators e
xperienced with each technique. The two groups were matched in terms of sex
, age, clinical presentation (50% acute), number of vessels and lesions ste
nted, and lesion morphology. The relative costs of the femoral and radial p
rocedures were examined using a decision analytic model and sensitivity ana
lysis. The suture device was not used in 20/109 patients (18%) for anatomic
reasons and failed to obtain hemostasis in 9/89 patients (10%). One radial
patient had an occluded radial artery postprocedure, but this was recanali
zed at follow-up a month later. Primary success, procedural complications,
postprocedure length of stay, and the percentage of patients discharged the
same day were the same in both groups. Because of the added time to deploy
Perclose, total procedure time was significantly longer in the femoral gro
up (57 +/- 22 min femoral vs. 44 +/- 22 min radial, P < 0.01). Access site
complications occurred only in the femoral group. More patients were ambula
tory the same day of the procedure in the radial group (95% radial vs. 56%
femoral, P < 0.01). The cost of the radial approach was substantially less
than the femoral approach because of lower supply costs and fewer access co
mplications. The transradial approach is a dominant strategy for coronary s
tenting, offering better outcomes at lower cost. (C) 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.