Comparisons of Clinical and Procedural Outcomes Between Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Korean Transradial Intervention Prospective Registry)

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.

Association Between Radial Versus Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Long-Term Mortality

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention with radial arterial access has been associated with fewer occurrences of major bleeding. However, published data on the long‐term mortality and major adverse cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention with radial or femoral arterial access are inconclusive.

Method and Results

This was a territory‐wide retrospective cohort study including 26 022 patients who underwent first‐ever percutaneous coronary intervention between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2017 in Hong Kong. Among the 14 614 patients matched by propensity score (7307 patients in each group), 558 (7.6%) and 787 (10.8%) patients died during the observation period in the radial group and femoral group, respectively, resulting in annualized all‐cause mortality rates of 2.69% and 3.87%, respectively. The radial group had a lower risk of all‐cause mortality compared with the femoral group up to 3 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63–0.78; P<0.001). Radial access was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73–0.83, P<0.001), myocardial infarction after hospital discharge (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70–0.87, P<0.001), and unplanned revascularization (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68–0.85, P<0.001). The risks of stroke were similar across the 2 groups (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.82–1.13, P=0.655).

Conclusions

Radial access was associated with a significant reduction in all‐cause mortality at 3 years compared with femoral access. Radial access was associated with reduced risks of myocardial infarction and unplanned revascularization, but not stroke. The benefits were sustained beyond the early postoperative period.

An Update on Radial Artery Access and Best Practices for Transradial Coronary Angiography and Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Transradial artery access for percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower bleeding and vascular complications than transfemoral artery access, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. A growing body of evidence supports adoption of transradial artery access to improve acute coronary syndrome-related outcomes, to improve healthcare quality, and to reduce cost. The purpose of this scientific statement is to propose and support a "radial-first" strategy in the United States for patients with acute coronary syndromes. This document also provides an update to previously published statements on transradial artery access technique and best practices, particularly as they relate to the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes.