Radial Versus Femoral Access for the Treatment of Left Main Lesion in the Era of Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents

Optimizing the Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is one of the most common procedures performed in medicine. However, its net benefit among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is less well established than in the general population. The prevalence of patients suffering from both CAD and CKD is high, and is likely to increase in the coming years. Planning the adequate management of this group of patients is crucial to improve their outcome after PCI. This starts with proper preparation before the procedure, the use of all available means to reduce contrast during the procedure, and the implementation of modern strategies such as radial access and drug-eluting stents. At the end of the procedure, personalized antithrombotic therapy for the patient’s specific characteristics is advisable to account for the elevated ischemic and bleeding risk of these patients.

Acute kidney injury after radial or femoral artery access in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: AKI-SAFARI

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) complicating primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an independent predictor of short- and long-term outcomes in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Prior studies suggest a lower incidence of AKI in patients undergoing PCI through radial artery compared to femoral artery access; however, no randomized clinical trials have specifically investigated this question in patients presenting with STEMI.

METHODS

To determine whether radial access (RA) is associated with a reduced frequency of AKI following primary PCI, we performed a substudy of the SAFARI-STEMI trial. The SAFARI-STEMI trial was an open-label, multicenter trial, which randomized patients presenting with STEMI to RA or femoral access (FA), between July 2011 and December 2018. The primary outcome of this post hoc analysis was the incidence of AKI, defined as an absolute (>0.5 mg/dL) or relative (>25%) increase in serum creatinine from baseline.

RESULTS

In total 2,285 (99.3%) of the patients enrolled in SAFARI-STEMI were included in the analysis-1,132 RA and 1,153 FA. AKI occurred in 243 (21.5%) RA patients and 226 (19.6%) FA patients (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.78-1.07, P = .27). An absolute increase in serum creatinine >0.5 mg/dL was seen in 49 (4.3%) radial and 52 (4.5%) femoral patients (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.71-1.53, P = .83). AKI was lower in both groups when the KDIGO definition was applied (RA 11.9% vs FA 10.8%; RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.72-1.13, P = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

Among STEMI patients enrolled in the SAFARI-STEMI trial, there was no association between catheterization access site and AKI, irrespective of the definition applied. These results challenge the independent association between catheterization access site and AKI noted in prior investigations.

Comparison of acute kidney injury with radial vs. femoral access for patients undergoing coronary catheterization: An updated meta-analysis of 46,816 patients

Trans-radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention or angiography has gained popularity amongst interventional cardiologists. Radial access is also thought to reduce the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in the immediate post-operative period. The purpose of the present study was to perform a comprehensive updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the incidence of AKI following the radial vs. femoral route of coronary catheterization. An electronic literature search of the PubMed, BioMed Central, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar databases up to 1st January 2020 was performed. A total of 14 studies were included, 2 of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 6 studies utilized propensity score matching. Comparison of the data of 21,479 patients in the radial group and 25,337 patients in the femoral group indicated a reduced incidence of AKI with the radial route [odds ratio (OR):0.66, 95% CI: 0.54-0.81, P<0.0001, I²=74%]. Similar results were obtained with sub-group analyses for RCTs (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77-0.98, P=0.02, I²=0%), retrospective studies (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36-0.90, P=0.02, I²=86%) and propensity score-matched studies (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48-0.83, P=0.0009, I²=45%). Multivariable-adjusted ORs of AKI for the radial vs. femoral route were extracted from non-RCTs and pooled for a meta-analysis, which also demonstrated similar results (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57-0.88, P=0.002, I²=70%). Within the limitations of the study, the present results indicate that, as compared to femoral access, the use of trans-radial access for coronary catheterization is associated with a significantly reduced incidence of AKI. A reduction of AKI by ~34% may be expected with the use of radial access.

Temporal trends in the practice of the transradial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in a large tertiary center

OBJECTIVE

The transradial approach (TRA) has increasingly been adopted for the use of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), with reported clinical benefits. Little is known regarding the change in outcomes over time.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From our large single-center PCI registry, we have analyzed 15 429 patients in two periods - 2008-2012 (period 1) and 2013-2017 (period 2). We examined the proportions of use of TRA, the influence on in-hospital outcomes, and adjusted long-term effects.

RESULTS

The rate of TRA rose from 15.9% in period 1 to 69.1% in period 2, including in specific situations such as acute coronary syndrome, chronic total occlusion, bifurcation, calcified lesions, and unprotected left main PCI. In-hospital rates of bleeding were lower for TRA versus transfemoral artery (1.8 vs. 5.1%, overall, P < 0.001), as were rates of additional bleeding events in the following 12 months (1.3 vs. 2.4%, P < 0.001). Following multivariate analysis, use of TRA was associated with a lower 30-day and 4-year rate of the composite outcomes of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or coronary artery bypass surgery [at 4 years, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-0.96; P = 0.007, during period 1 and HR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.55-0.7; P < 0.0001 during period 2]. Interaction analysis showed a stronger effect at the latter period (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Over a decade of follow-up, TRA has gained acceptance for different PCI scenarios, including complex patients - a course which is associated with consistent short and long-term clinical benefits.

Self-expandable sirolimus-eluting stents compared to second-generation drug-eluting stents for the treatment of the left main: A propensity score analysis from the SPARTA and the FAILS-2 registries

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of self-expandable, sirolimus-eluting Stentys stents (SES) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES-II) for the treatment of the unprotected left main (ULM).

BACKGROUND

SES may provide a valuable option to treat distal ULM, particularly when significant caliber gaps with side branches are observed.

METHODS

Patients from the multicenter SPARTA (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02784405) and FAILS2 registries were included. Propensity-score with matching was performed to account for the lack of randomization. Primary end-point was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization [TLR], unstable angina and definite stent thrombosis [ST]). Single components of MACE were the secondary end-points.

RESULTS

Overall, 151 patients treated with SES and 1270 with DES-II were included; no differences in MACE rate at 250 days were observed (9.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.54). After propensity score with matching, 129 patients treated with SES and 258 with DES-II, of which about a third of female gender, were compared. After a follow-up of 250 days, MACE rate did not differ between the two groups (9.9% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.66), as well as the rate of ULM TLR (1.6% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.36) and definite ST (0.8% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.78). These results were consistent also when controlling for the treatment with provisional vs. 2-stents strategies for the ULM bifurcation.

CONCLUSION

SES use for ULM treatment was associated with a similar MACE rate compared to DES-II at an intermediate-term follow-up. SES might represent a potential option in this setting.

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

PCI of ULMS is frequently performed through TFA because of technical complexity and safety concern. Studies have shown comparable efficacy and safety of TRA versus TFA, however, these studies are few in number. We intended to compare the clinical outcomes between transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (ULMS) by performing a meta-analysis.

METHOD

A systematic search of database, including, PubMed, Web of Science, Google scholar and Cochrane Database were performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were included comparing "TRA" versus "TFA" in patients undergoing PCI in ULMS. The primary outcome was a procedural success rate. Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, access site complications, in-hospital and long term: major adverse cardiac events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular mortality.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the analysis. The procedural success rate was 97.3% and there was no statistically significant difference between TRA and TFA groups (OR, 1.41 [CI 0.64, 3.12], I² = 26%). The rates of access site complications (OR, 0.17 [CI 0.07, 0.41], I² = 16%), major bleeding (OR, 0.39 [CI 0.17, 0.86], I² = 0%) and all-cause mortality (OR, 0.28 [CI 0.12, 0.64], I² = 0%) were lower in the TRA group. There were no significant differences in in-hospital and long term cardiovascular mortality, MI and MACE between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to TFA, TRA is associated with reduced bleeding and access site complications, with similar procedural success rate in patients undergoing PCI of ULMS.