Background
Despite the advantages of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to fibrinolytic therapy, it holds some potential risks such as contrast related reactions and technical problems. In addition, recent studies have shown disparities in which access is more exposed to radiation. Objectives: To analyze the clinical profile, differences between radial and femoral approach and complications presented in patients who underwent PCI performed in a hospital in the south of Brazil.
Conclusion
The femoral approach demonstrated more expressive radiation exposure, which can be explained by anatomic reasons. Femoral access represented a safe approach for interventionists in more urgent cases, such as STEMI. Different accesses or degree of urgency did not show an association with complications, as opposed to STEMI, revealing that this condition deserves more attention regarding its procedures and post-PCI care.
Methods
A total of 733 patients who underwent PCI in 2016 were included and retrospectively analyzed through their clinical records. The primary outcomes analyzed were procedure approach and the presence of complications.
Results
The median age was 62.5 years; 54.8% were male; 50.8% had hypertension and 18.6% were diabetic; and mortality was seen in 2.3% of the population. Femoral approach was the most exposed to radiation, as well as the most used in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Complications were seen in 16.1% of the population and cardiovascular complication was the most frequent. Different accesses or degree of urgency showed no association with complication development. On the other hand, STEMI was related to a bigger complication burden.