Comparison of Radial Artery Occlusion Following Transradial Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Sheath-based versus Sheathless Technique
We compared the risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) in patients undergoing coronary intervention with introducer sheath (SG) or without introducer sheath (SLG). 1251 consecutive patients, from 2 tertiary care center in Pennsylvania, USA, undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) between 2008-2013 formed the study cohort (SLG: 161 patients, SG: 1090 patients). Radial artery patency was assessed using plethysmography. The association between sheath use and RAO was assessed using unadjusted, adjusted and propensity macthed logistic regression analyses. Mean age: 65 years, men: 63%, diabetics: 37%. SG was associated with lower RAO at band removal [unadjusted (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21-0.46), adjusted (OR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.20) and propensity matched (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.13-0.32)], at 24 hours [unadjusted (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.12-0.34), adjusted (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.06-0.24) and propensity matched (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.07-0.25)] and 30 days [unadjusted (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14-0.54), adjusted (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.10-0.50) and propensity matched (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.10-0.40)], compared to SLG. Sheath use during radial access for PCI is associated with less RAO. It is unclear if use of introducer sheath during radial access for PCI reduces incidence of RAO. In this prospective cohort study involving 1251 concecutive patients undergoing PCI via radial access between 2008-2013, we assessed the difference in incidence of RAO between the SG (n = 1090) and the SLG (n = 161 patients) groups. SG group experienced lower incidence of RAO at band removal, 24 hours and 30 days post PCI in the unadjusted, adjusted, and propensity matched analyses compared to the SLG group. In conclusion sheath use during radial access for PCI is associated with less RAO.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,529,980
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#106,803
of 124,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,772
of 330,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#3,124
of 3,677 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,677 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
