Patient preference for radial versus femoral vascular access for elective coronary procedures: The PREVAS study

Marlies M Kok, Marieke G M Weernink, Clemens von Birgelen, Anneloes Fens, Liefke C van der Heijden, Janine A van Til, Marlies M Kok, Marieke G M Weernink, Clemens von Birgelen, Anneloes Fens, Liefke C van der Heijden, Janine A van Til

Abstract

Objectives: To explore patient preference for vascular access site in percutaneous coronary procedures, the perceived importance of benefits and risks of transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) were assessed. In addition, direct preference for vascular access and preference for shared decision making (SDM) were evaluated.

Background: TRA has gained significant ground on TFA during the last decades. Surveys on patient preference have mostly been performed in dedicated TRA trials.

Methods: In the PREVAS study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02625493) a stated preference elicitation method best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to determine patient preference for six treatment attributes: bleeding, switch of access-site, postprocedural vessel quality, mobilization and comfort, and over-night stay. Based on software-generated treatment scenarios, 142 patients indicated which characteristics they perceived most and least important in treatment choice. Best-minus-Worst scores and attribute importance were calculated.

Results: Bleeding risk was considered most important (attribute importance 31.3%), followed by length of hospitalization (22.6%), and mobilization(20.2%). Most patients preferred the approach of their current procedure (85.9%); however, 71.1% of patients with experience with both access routes favored TRA (P < 0.001). Most patients (38.0%) appreciated SDM, balanced between patient and cardiologist.

Conclusions: Patients appreciate lower bleeding risk and early ambulation, factors favoring TRA. Previous experience with a single access route has a major impact on preference, while experience with both routes generally resulted in preference for TRA. Most patients prefer balanced SDM. © 2017 The Authors Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: catheterization; medical decision making; patient preference; transfemoral access; transradial access.

© 2017 The Authors Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A: Relative desirability for procedural characteristics. Characteristics of treatment that are either close to the x or close to the y‐axis were perceived similarly by all patients; in contrast, levels located in the middle were perceived differently. B: Attributes and attribute levels of treatment. Definitions of the individual labels. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 2
Figure 2
Conditional logistic regression of atributes. A high positive coefficient indicates that the attribute was more often chosen as best rather than worst, and thus likely to be preferred relative to other combinations of attributes. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 3
Figure 3
Actual and preferred decision maker. The actual decision maker in the current procedure is depicted by dark bars; the desired decision maker is depicted by light bars. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

References

    1. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, et al. A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: The ACCESS study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:1269–1275.
    1. Bertrand OF, Bélisle P, Joyal D, et al. Comparison of transradial and femoral approaches for percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian meta‐analysis. Am Heart J 2012;163:632–648.
    1. Jolly SS, Amlani S, Hamon M, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J 2009;157:132–140.
    1. Windecker S, Kohl P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2014;35:2541–2619.
    1. Romagnoli E, Biondi‐Zoccai G, Sciahbasi A, et al. Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: The RIFLE‐STEACS (radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST‐elevation acute coronary syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:2481–2489.
    1. Cantor WJ, Puley G, Natarajan MK. Radial versus femoral access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention with adjunct glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in acute myocardial infarction–the RADIAL‐AMI pilot randomized trial. Am Heart J 2005;150:543–549.
    1. Hamon M, Rasmussen LH, Manoukian SV, et al. Choice of arterial access site and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes managed with an early invasive strategy: The ACUITY trial. EuroIntervention 2009;5:115–120.
    1. Agostoni P, Biondi‐Zoccai GG, De Benedictis ML, et al. Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional provedures: Systematic overview and meta‐analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:349–356.
    1. Archbold RA, Robinson NM, Schilling RJ. Radial artery access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. BMJ 2004;329:443.
    1. Rafie IM, Muez M, Oseei‐Gernin N, et al. Patients undergoing PCI from the femoral route by default radial operators are at high risk of vascular access‐site complications. EuroIntervention 2014;9:1189–1194.
    1. Ratib K, Mamas MA, Fraser DG, et al. Operator experience and radiation exposure during transradial and transfemoral procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2011;4:936–937.
    1. van der Weijden T, van Veenendaal H, Drenthen T, et al. Shared decision making in the Netherlands, is the time ripe for nationwide, structural implementation? Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2011;105:283–288.
    1. Schwalm JD, Stacey D, Pericak D, et al. Radial artery versus femoral artery access options in coronary angiogram procedures randomized controlled trial of a patient‐decision aid. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012;5:260–266.
    1. Sepucha K, Mulley AG. A perspective on the patient's role in treatment decisions. Med Care Res Rev 2009;66:53–73.
    1. Rao SV, Cohen MG, Kandzari DE, et al. The transradial approach to percutaneous coronary intervention: Historical perspective, current concepts, and future directions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2187–2195.
    1. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes(RIVAL): A randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 2011;377:1409–1420.
    1. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best‐worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 2007;26:171–189.
    1. Cooper CJ, El‐Shiekh RA, Cohen DJ, et al. Effect of transradial access on quality of life and cost of cardiac catheterization: A randomized comparison. Am Heart J 1999;138:430–436.
    1. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: A randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2015;385:2465–2476.
    1. Choussat R, Black A, Bossi I, et al. Vascular complications and clinical outcome after coronary angioplasty with platelet IIb/IIIa receptor blockade: Comparison of transradial vs. transfemoral arterial access. Eur Heart J 2000;21:662–667.
    1. Kwok CS, Kontopantelis E, Kunadian V, et al. Effect of access site, gender, and indication on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society(BCIS). Am Heart J 2015;170:164–172.
    1. Bernat I, Horak D, Stasek J, et al. ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: The STEMI‐RADIAL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:964–972.
    1. Louvard Y, Lefevre T, Allain A, et al. Coronary angiography through the radial or the femoral approach: The CARAFE study. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2001;52:181–187.
    1. Karrowni W, Vyas A, Giacomino B, et al. Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2013;6:814–823.
    1. Bertrand OF, Rao SV, Pancholy S, et al. Transradial approach for coronary angiography and interventions: Results of the first international transradial practice survey. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2010;3:1022–1031.
    1. Ziakas A, Klinke P, Fretz E, et al. Same‐day discharge is preferred by the majority of the patients undergoing radial PCI. J Invasive Cardiol 2004;16:562–565.
    1. Glaser R, Gertz Z, Matthai WH, et al. Patient satisfaction is comparable to early discharge versus overnight observation after elective percutaneous coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol 2009;21:464–467.
    1. Kim M, Muntner P, Sharma S, et al. Assessing patient‐reported outcomes and preferences for same‐day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention: Results from a pilot randomized, controlled trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2013;6:186–192.
    1. Kok MM, von Birgelen C, Lam MK, et al. Patient preference regarding assessment of clinical follow‐up after percutaneous coronary intervention: The PAPAYA study. EuroIntervention 2016;11:1487–1494.
    1. Kok MM, van der Heijden LC, Sen H, et al. Gender difference in chest pain after implantation of newer generation coronary drug‐eluting stents: A patient‐level pooled analysis from TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2016;9:553–561.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel