Dataset Information

Slender Sheath/Guiding Catheter Combination vs. Sheathless Guiding Catheter for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Two Devices.

ABSTRACT: A Glidesheath slender (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) and a sheathless Eaucath guiding catheter (Asahi Intecc, Nagoya, Japan) are two major slender devices utilized in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to investigate the differences in access-site complications between these devices in PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). A total of 1108 consecutive patients who underwent transradial PCI for ACS were enrolled. Transradial PCI was performed using either a 7-Fr Glidesheath slender/7-Fr guiding catheter combination (Glidesheath group) or a 7.5-Fr sheathless guiding catheter (Sheathless group); 1 : 1 propensity score matching was performed, and 728 patients (364 in each group) were included in the propensity-matched population. In the matched patients, univariate analysis revealed that the Glidesheath group had less radial artery occlusion (RAO) at 30 days (Glidesheath: 1.4% vs. Sheathless: 4.1%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.12-0.91, p=0.039), whereas no significant between-group differences were observed in severe radial spasm (Glidesheath: 1.4% vs. Sheathless: 1.9%, OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.23-2.22, p=0.58) or access-site major bleeding (Glidesheath: 1.4% vs. Sheathless: 1.6%, OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.26-2.71, p=1.00). Multivariate analysis revealed that the choice for Glidesheath was significantly associated with less RAO (OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.11-0.93, p=0.036). In conclusion, 7-Fr Glidesheath slender/7-Fr guiding catheter combination is obviously more advantageous than 7.5-Fr sheathless guiding catheters for decreased risk of RAO. The potential low risk of RAO in our findings supports the adoption of the 7-Fr Glidesheath slender sheath/7-Fr guiding catheter combination in transradial PCI for ACS.

SUBMITTER: Isawa T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7443233 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: It remains unclear whether the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) accrue to patients with recurrent liver tumors. The present study aimed to report our own center's experience and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LRH in comparison with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for treating recurrent liver tumors. Patients and Methods: A propensity score-matched study was performed including 426 patients receiving LRH or ORH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2017 and December 2018. Surgical outcomes and perioperative inflammation-based markers, including monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune-inflammation index were collected from medical records and analyzed. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to October 1, 2020. Information including patient demographics, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes was extracted and analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models. Results: Of 68 LRHs, 57 were matched with an ORH finally. Our study demonstrated that LRH was significantly associated with less intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001), lower rate of hepatic inflow occlusion (10.52 vs. 33.3%; P = 0.003), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001) after 1:1 propensity score matching. The operation time, rate of blood transfusion, and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Moreover, all four inflammation-based markers were significantly lower in LRH group on postoperative day 1. In the meta-analysis, a total of 12 studies comprising 1,315 patients receiving repeat hepatectomy met the selection criteria. Similar to our own study, the meta-analysis showed shorter hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.79 to -0.22, P < 0.001], less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.11 to -0.47, P < 0.001), and lower rate of major postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19-0.66, P = 0.001] in the LRH group. There was no difference in the field of overall postoperative complication and operation time between LRH and ORH groups. Conclusion: Compared with ORH, LRH results in relatively better surgical outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. It could be considered a feasible and effective option for the treatment of recurrent liver tumors.

Project description:ImportanceDistant recurrence following preoperative chemoradiotherapy and resection in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is common. Adjuvant chemotherapy may improve survival.ObjectiveTo compare adjuvant chemotherapy with postoperative observation following preoperative chemoradiotherapy and resection in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.Design, setting, and participantsPropensity score-matched analysis using the National Cancer Database. We included adult patients who received a diagnosis between 2006 and 2013 of clinical stage T1N1-3M0 or T2-4N0-3M0 adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus or gastric cardia who were treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and curative-intent resection. Patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were matched by propensity score to patients undergoing postoperative observation.ExposuresAdjuvant chemotherapy and postoperative observation.Main outcomes and measuresOverall survival.ResultsWe identified 10?086 patients (8840 [88%] male; mean [SD] age, 61 [9.5] years), 9272 in the postoperative observation group and 814 in the adjuvant chemotherapy group. Patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were younger (18-54 years: 252 [31%] vs 1989 [21%]; P?<?.001) and were more likely to have advanced disease (ypT3/4: 458 [62%] vs 3531 [46%]; P?<?.001; ypN+: 572 [72%] vs 3428 [39%]; P?<?.001), as well as shorter postoperative inpatient stays (>2 weeks: 94 [13%] vs 1589 [20%]; P?<?.001). A total of 732 patients in the adjuvant chemotherapy group were matched by propensity score to 3660 patients in the postoperative observation group. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival compared with postoperative observation (median survival: 40 months; 95% CI, 36-46 months vs 34 months; 95% CI, 32-35 months; stratified log-rank P?<?.001; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88). Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 88%, 47%, and 34% in the observation group, and 94%, 54%, and 38% in the adjuvant chemotherapy group, respectively. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a survival benefit compared with postoperative observation in most patient subgroups.Conclusions and relevanceFor patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and resection, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival. Our findings have important implications for the postoperative treatment of this patient group for which few data are available.

Dataset Information

Slender Sheath/Guiding Catheter Combination vs. Sheathless Guiding Catheter for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Two Devices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure