Radial versus femoral artery access for percutaneous coronary artery intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease complicated by cardiogenic shock: Subanalysis from the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial

Characteristics and outcome in cardiogenic shock according to vascular access site for percutaneous coronary intervention

AIMS

The optimal vascular access site for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains uncertain. While observational data favour transradial access (TRA) due to lower complication rates and mortality, transfemoral access (TFA) PCI offers advantages such as shorter access and procedure times, along with quicker escalation to mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In this study, we aimed to investigate factors associated with a transfemoral approach and compare mortality rates between TRA and TFA in AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from a nationwide registry of AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI (2017-2021) were analysed. We compared patient demographics, procedural details, and outcomes between TRA and TFA groups. Logistic regression identified access site factors and radial-to-femoral crossover predictors. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis examined the impact of access site on mortality. Of the 1562 patients, 45% underwent TRA PCI, with an increasing trend over time. Transfemoral access patients were more often female, had a history of coronary artery bypass grafting, lower blood pressure, higher resuscitation and intubation rates, and elevated lactate levels. After PSM, 30-day mortality was lower in TRA (33% vs. 46%, P < 0.001). Predictors for crossover included left coronary artery interventions, multivessel PCI, and MCS initiation.

CONCLUSION

Significant differences exist between TRA and TFA PCI in AMI-CS. Transfemoral access was more common in patients with worse haemodynamics and was associated with higher 30-day mortality compared with TRA. This mortality difference persisted in the PSM analysis.

Cardiogenic Shock Prior to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Outcomes and Predictors of Mortality (ANZACS-QI 73)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a serious complication of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and is associated with significant mortality. We describe a contemporary, real-world cohort of patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and CS, including 30-day mortality and clinically relevant predictors of mortality.

METHODS

All patients presenting with STEMI who were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in New Zealand (2016 to 2020) were identified from the Aotearoa New Zealand All Cardiology Services Quality Improvement (ANZACS-QI) registry and stratified based on their Killip class on arrival to the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Multivariable analysis was used to identify predictors of mortality prior to PCI and to develop a mortality scoring system.

RESULTS

In total, 6,649 patients were identified, including 192 (2.9%) Killip IV (CS) patients. Thirty-day mortality was 47.5% in patients with CS, 14.6% in those with heart failure without shock, and 3% in those without heart failure. Independent predictors of 30-day mortality for patients with CS were: estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73m2 (relative risk [RR] 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39-2.58), cardiac arrest (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.15-2.06), diabetes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.70), female sex (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01-1.72), femoral arterial access (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.06-1.90) and left main stem culprit (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.65-2.84). A multivariable Shock score was developed which predicts 30-day mortality with good global discrimination (area under the curve 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85).

CONCLUSION

In this national cohort, the 30-day mortality for STEMI patients presenting with CS treated with PCI remains high, at nearly 50%. The ANZACS-QI Shock score is a promising tool for mortality risk stratification prior to PCI but requires further validation.

Stroke risk in radial versus femoral approach in coronary intervention: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Peri-cardiac catheterization (CC) stroke is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Little is known about any potential difference in stroke risk between transradial (TR) and transfemoral (TF) approaches. We explored this question through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from 1980 to June 2022. Randomized trials and observational studies comparing radial versus femoral access CC or intervention that reported stroke events were included. A random-effects model was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The total population in our 41 pooled studies comprised 1 112 136 patients - average age 65 years, women averaging 27% in TR and 31% in TF approaches. Primary analysis of 18 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that included a total of 45 844 patients showed that there was no statistical significance in stroke outcomes between the TR approach and the TF approach [odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-1.06, P -value = 0.013, I2 = 47.7%]. Furthermore, meta-regression analysis of RCTs including procedural duration between those two access sites showed no significance in stroke outcomes (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86-1.34, P -value = 0.921, I2 = 0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in stroke outcomes between the TR approach and the TF approach.

Outcomes and Institutional Variation in Arterial Access Among Patients With AMI and Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing PCI

BACKGROUND

Contemporary data comparing the outcomes of transradial access (TRA) vs transfemoral access (TFA) among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited.

OBJECTIVES

This study examines in-hospital outcomes and institutional variation among patients with AMI-CS undergoing TRA-PCI vs TFA-PCI.

METHODS

Patients admitted with AMI-CS from the NCDR CathPCI registry between April 2018 and June 2021 were included. Multivariable logistic regression and inverse probability weighting models were used to assess the association between access site and in-hospital outcomes. A falsification analysis using non-access site-related bleeding was performed.

RESULTS

Among 35,944 patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, 25.6% were performed with TRA. The proportion of TRA-PCI increased over the study period (22.0% in the second quarter of 2018 vs 29.1% in the second quarter of 2021; P-trend <0.001). Significant institutional-level variability in the use of TRA-PCI was also observed: 20.9% of all sites using TRA in <2% of PCIs (low utilization) vs 1.9% of all sites using TRA in >80% of PCIs (high utilization). Patients undergoing TRA-PCI had a significantly lower adjusted incidence of major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.76), mortality (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.69-0.78), vascular complications (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54-0.84), and new dialysis (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77-0.97). There was no difference in non-access site related bleeding (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.84-1.03). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar benefit with TRA-PCI among patients without arterial cross-over. There were no significant interactions observed between TRA-PCI with mechanical circulatory support and in-hospital outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large nationwide contemporary analysis of patients with AMI-CS, about quarter of PCIs were performed via TRA with wide variability across US institutions. TRA-PCI was associated with significantly lower incidence of in-hospital major bleeding, mortality, vascular complications, and new dialysis. This benefit was observed irrespective of mechanical circulatory support use.

Clinical Outcomes after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Cardiogenic Shock Secondary to Total Occlusive Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Lesion-Related Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with occlusion of an unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) is a rare condition with a high mortality. The literature on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for cardiogenic shock secondary to ULMCA-related AMI is scarce.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, all consecutive patients undergoing PCI for cardiogenic shock secondary to total occlusive ULMCA-related AMI were included between January 1998 and January 2017. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. The secondary endpoints were long-term mortality and 30-day and long-term major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. The differences in clinical and procedural variables were assessed. A multivariable model was created to search for independent predictors of survival.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were included, and the mean age was 62 ± 11 years. The majority of patients suffered cardiac arrest prior or during PCI (51%). Thirty-day mortality was 78%, of which 55% died within 24 h. The median follow-up of patients who survived 30 days (n = 11) was 9.9 years (interquartile range 4.7-13.6), and long-term mortality was 84%. Long-term all-cause mortality was independently associated with cardiac arrest prior or during PCI (hazard ratio [HR] 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.02-4.01, p = 0.043). Patients who survived to the 30-day follow-up with severe left ventricular dysfunction had a significantly higher risk of mortality compared to patients with moderate to mild dysfunction (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiogenic shock secondary to total occlusive ULMCA-related AMI carries a very high 30-day all-cause mortality. Thirty-day survivors with a severe left ventricular dysfunction have a poor long-term prognosis.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with less bleeding and mortality than transfemoral access (TFA). However, patients in cardiogenic shock (CS) are more often treated via TFA. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of TRA vs. TFA in CS.

METHODS

Systematic review was performed querying PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov for studies comparing TRA to TFA in PCI for CS. Outcomes included in-hospital, 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, major and access site bleeding, TIMI3 (thrombolytics in myocardial infarction) flow, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects models.

RESULTS

Six prospective and eight retrospective studies (TRA, n = 8032; TFA, n = 23 031) were identified. TRA was associated with lower in-hospital (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.66, P < 0.0001), 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, as well as less in-hospital major (RR 0.41, 0.31-0.56, P < 0.001) and access site bleeding (RR 0.42, 0.23-0.77, P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences in post-PCI coronary flow grade, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume between TRA vs. TFA.

CONCLUSIONS

In PCI for STEMI with CS, TRA is associated with significantly lower mortality and bleeding complications than TFA while achieving similar TIMI3 flow and procedural success rates.

Predictors of Radial to Femoral Artery Access Crossover During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Radial access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with reduced mortality and bleeding, when compared to femoral access. However, radial access failure may be associated with an increased door-to-device (DTD) time.

AIMS

To identify predictors of radial access failure requiring crossover to femoral artery access during primary PCI.

METHODS

From 2013 to 2020, 2,256 consecutive patients treated for PPCI at a single tertiary hospital were prospectively recruited into the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry and followed for 30 days. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of radial to femoral access crossover.

RESULTS

From 2,256 STEMI patients, primary radial access was used in 1,778 (78.8%), with 171 (9.6%) experiencing radial-to-femoral crossover. Patients with failed versus successful radial access experienced longer DTD times (67 mins, interquartile range [IQR] 46-99 vs 54 mins [IQR 39-78]; p<0.001). Independent predictors of radial-to-femoral access crossover included female sex (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 2.1, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.4-3.0; p<0.001) and baseline hypertension (AOR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1; p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

In a real-world STEMI registry, almost 1 in 10 patients experienced access crossover from the radial to femoral artery which resulted in longer DTD times. Independent predictors of radial access failure included female sex and baseline hypertension. Knowing which patient characteristics are associated with increased risk of radial artery failure enables catheter laboratory staff to ensure equipment is readily available to maximise successful primary PCI are available.

Cardiogenic Shock Management and Research: Past, Present, and Future Outlook

Although great strides have been made in the pathophysiological understanding, diagnosis and management of cardiogenic shock (CS), morbidity and mortality in patients presenting with the condition remain high. Acute MI is the commonest cause of CS; consequently, most existing literature concerns MI-associated CS. However, there are many more phenotypes of patients with acute heart failure. Medical treatment and mechanical circulatory support are well-established therapeutic options, but evidence for many current treatment regimens is limited. The issue is further complicated by the fact that implementing adequately powered, randomized controlled trials are challenging for many reasons. In this review, the authors discuss the history, landmark trials, current topics of medical therapy and mechanical circulatory support regimens, and future perspectives of CS management.

Radial versus femoral access for left main percutaneous coronary intervention: An analysis from the Veterans Affairs Clinical, Reporting, and Tracking Program

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare clinical characteristics and procedural outcomes of left main percutaneous interventions (LM-PCI) by transradial (TRA) versus transfemoral (TFA) approach in the VA healthcare system.

BACKGROUND

TRA for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is steadily increasing. However, the frequency and efficacy of TRA for LM-PCI remain less studied.

METHODS

All LM-PCIs performed in the VA healthcare system were identified for fiscal year 2008 through 2018. Patients' baseline characteristics and procedure-related variables were compared by access site. Both short- and long-term clinical outcomes were analyzed using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 4004 LM-PCI were performed in the VA via either radial or femoral access from 2008 to 2018. Among these, 596 (14.9%) LM PCIs were performed via TRA. Use of TRA for LM-PCI increased from 2.2% to 31.5% over the study period. Propensity matched outcome analysis, comparing TRA versus TFA, showed a similar procedural success (98.4% for TRA vs. 97.8% for TFA; RR: 1.01 [0.98, 1.03]) and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (25.9% for TRA vs. 26.8% TFA; RR: 0.96 [0.74, 1.25]). There were no statistically significant differences among secondary outcomes analyses including major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Use of TRA for LM-PCI has been steadily increasing in the VA healthcare system. These findings demonstrate similar procedural success and 1-year MACE across access strategies, suggesting an opportunity to continue increasing TRA use for LM-PCI.

Balancing thrombosis and bleeding after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest related to acute coronary syndrome: A literature review

Balance between thrombosis and bleeding is now well recognized in patients treated for acute coronary syndrome, with impact on short- and long-term prognosis, including survival. Recent data suggest that patients who are resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest related to myocardial infarction are at an even higher risk of bleeding and thrombosis than those with uncomplicated acute coronary syndrome. Delayed enteral absorption of medication due to induced hypothermia and systemic inflammation increases thrombosis risk, whereas transfemoral access site, cardiopulmonary resuscitation manoeuvres and mechanical circulatory support devices increase bleeding risk. In addition, post-resuscitation syndrome and renal or hepatic impairment are potential risk factors for both bleeding and thrombotic complications. There are currently no randomized controlled trials comparing various P₂Y₁₂ inhibitor and/or anticoagulation strategies in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and current practice is largely derived from management of patients with uncomplicated acute coronary syndrome. The aim of this review is therefore to describe the bleeding and thrombosis risk factors in this specific population, and to review recent data on antithrombotic drugs in this patient subset.

Management of cardiogenic shock

Despite the rapidly evolving evidence base in modern cardiology, progress in the area of cardiogenic shock remains slow, with short-term mortality still reaching 40-50%, relatively unchanged in recent years. Despite advances with an increase in the number of clinical trials taking place in this admittedly difficult-to-study area, the evidence base on which we make day-to-day decisions in clinical practice remains relatively sparse. With only definitive evidence for early revascularisation and the relative ineffectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pumping, most aspects of patient management are based on expert consensus, rather than randomised controlled trials. This updated 2020 review will outline the management of CS mainly after acute myocardial infarction with major focus on state-of-the-art treatment based on randomised clinical trials or matched comparisons if available.

Interventional treatment of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute revascularization is with some evidence the only intervention proven to improve the prognosis in myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock but several interventions are continuously being investigated in order to increase survival among these patients. In this review, several aspects related to the interventional treatment of cardiogenic shock are discussed chronologically from symptom debut to leaving the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the randomized CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, a culprit-only revascularization strategy was reported superior to immediate complete revascularization among patients with multivessel disease. Recent large-scale observational data underline the marked prognostic importance of time from medical contact to revascularization in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock. Moreover, studies suggest a potential beneficial effect of a transradial vascular access as well as early initialization of mechanical circulatory support in carefully selected patients. This, however, needs further validation.

SUMMARY

Acute revascularization remains a crucial part of the initial management of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock. Among cardiogenic shock patients presenting with multivessel disease, a culprit-only approach should be the routine strategy. Time to revascularization plays a crucial role in the setting of cardiogenic shock, why prehospital optimization and triaging may be the most important factors in order to improve prognosis in AMI-related cardiogenic shock.

Impact of bleeding on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

AIMS

Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is associated with substantial mortality, although there are limited data available on bleeding in this critical condition. This study sought to investigate the incidence and impact of major in-hospital bleeding on all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2017, a total of 3411 patients hospitalized within 24 h after symptom onset were prospectively enrolled in the Japan Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (JAMIR) and followed up for a median of 293 (interquartile range, 22-375) days. AMICS developed in 335 (9.8%) patients (mean age, 71.3 ± 13.6 years). Overall, the rate of major in-hospital bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 and 5) and in-hospital mortality was 14.6% and 28.7%, respectively. The majority of major in-hospital bleeding (73.5%) occurred within 48 h after PCI. Compared to patients without major in-hospital bleeding, those with it had higher rates of renal failure, left main coronary artery culprit lesion, and intra-aortic balloon pump or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, and had longer door-to-device time. The cumulative incidence of 1-year all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the major bleeding group compared to the non-major bleeding group (63.8% vs. 25.5%; log-rank P < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, major in-hospital bleeding was independently associated with increased all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.69).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings of JAMIR indicate that major in-hospital bleeding is associated with all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS who undergo PCI.

Impact of chronic total occlusion and revascularization strategy in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock: A subanalysis of the culprit-shock trial

BACKGROUND

The impact of coronary artery chronic total occlusion (CTO) and its management with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of myocardial infarction (MI) related cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unclear.

METHODS

This is a pre-specified analysis from the culprit-lesion-only PCI vs multivessel PCI in CS (CULPRIT-SHOCK) trial which randomized patients presenting with MI and multivessel disease complicated by CS to a culprit-lesion-only or immediate multivessel PCI strategy. CTO was defined by central core-laboratory evaluation. The independent associations between the presence of CTO and adverse outcomes at 30 days and 1 year were assessed using multivariate logistics models.

RESULTS

A noninfarct related CTO was present in 157 of 667 (23.5%) analyzed patients. Patients presenting with CTO had more frequent diabetes mellitus or prior PCI but less frequently presented with ST segment elevation MI as index event. The presence of CTO was associated with higher rate of death at 30 days (adjusted Odds ratio 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-2.60). Rate of death at 1 year was also increased but did not reach statistical significance (adjusted Odds ratio 1.62; 95%CI 0.99-2.66). Compare to immediate multivessel PCI, a strategy of culprit-lesion-only PCI was associated with lower rates of death or renal replacement therapy at 30 days in patients with and without CTO (Odds ratio 0.79 95%CI 0.42-1.49 and Odds ratio 0.67 95%CI 0.48-0.96, respectively), without significant interaction (P = .68).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with MI-related CS and multivessel disease, the presence of CTO is associated with adverse outcomes while a strategy of culprit-lesion-only PCI seems beneficial regardless of the presence of CTO.