Mortality and operator experience with vascular access for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Pre-Liver Transplant Cardiac Catheterization Is Associated With Low Rate of Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac Mortality

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A study at Indiana University demonstrated a reduction in myocardial infarction (MI) incidence with increased frequency of cardiac catheterization (CATH) in liver transplant (LT) candidates. A strict protocol for performing CATH based upon predefined risk factors, rather than noninvasive testing alone, was applied to a subgroup (2009-2010) from that study. CATH was followed by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cases of significant coronary artery disease (CAD; ≥50% stenosis). The current study applies this screening protocol to a larger cohort (2010-2016) to assess post-LT clinical outcomes.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Among 811 LT patients, 766 underwent stress testing (94%) and 559 underwent CATH (69%), of whom 10% had CAD requiring PCI. The sensitivity of stress echocardiography in detecting significant CAD was 37%. Predictors of PCI included increasing age, male gender, and personal history of CAD (P < 0.05 for all). Compared to patients who had no CATH, patients who underwent CATH had higher mortality (P = 0.07), and the hazard rates (HR) for mortality increased with CAD severity (normal CATH, HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-2.33; P = 0.298; nonobstructive CAD, HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.84-2.77; P = 0.161; and significant CAD, HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.93-4.15; P = 0.080). Post-LT outcomes were compared to the 2009-2010 subgroup from the previous study and showed similar 1-year overall mortality (8% and 6%, P = 0.48), 1-year MI incidence (<1% and <1%, P = 0.8), and MI deaths as a portion of all deaths (3% and 9%, P = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Stress echocardiography alone is not reliable in screening LT patients for CAD. Aggressive CAD screening with CATH is associated with low rate of MI and cardiac mortality and validates the previously published protocol when extrapolated over a larger sample and longer follow-up period.

Radial Approach Expertise and Clinical Outcomes of Percutanous Coronary Interventions Performed Using Femoral Approach

We sought to evaluate the impact of experience and proficiency with radial approach (RA) on clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed via femoral approach (FA) in the “real-world” national registry. A total of 539 invasive cardiologists performing PCIs in 151 invasive cardiology centers in Poland between 2014 and 2017 were included. Proficiency threshold was set at >300 PCIs during four consecutive years per individual operator. The majority of operators performed >75% of all PCIs via RA (449 (65.4%)), 143 (20.8%) in 50–75% of cases, 62 (9.0%) in 25–50% and only 33 (4.8%) invasive cardiologists were using RA in <25% of all PCIs. Operators with the highest proficiency in RA were associated with increased risk of periprocedural death, stroke and bleeding complications at access site during angiography via FA. Similarly, higher prevalence of periprocedural mortality during PCI with FA was observed in most experienced radial operators as compared to other groups. The detrimental effect of FA utilization by the most experienced radial operators was observed in both stable angina and acute coronary syndromes. Higher experience and utilization of RA might be linked to worse outcomes of PCIs performed via femoral artery in both stable and acute settings.

Transradial access versus transfemoral access: a comparison of outcomes and efficacy in reducing hemorrhagic events

Introduction: The radial artery is currently the most widely used access site for PCI procedures both acute and stable patient settings. Thanks to advantages in pharmacological therapy as well as in interventional devices, the rate of ischemic complications following PCI has significantly decreased. Nevertheless, this has been counterbalanced by an increased risk of periprocedural and late bleeding event, that can occur both at access and non-access sites. Choice of access site for PCI is of paramount importance to reduce the risk of access-related bleeding events. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the actual available evidence comparing the transradial versus transfemoral approach to reduce hemorrhagic events. The most robust evidence comes from large randomized trials, partly also from observational registries, which compared the transradial and transfemoral approach. Expert opinion: Results show that radial access has proved to be decisive in reducing the incidence of hemorrhagic events. Furthermore, it showed a significant reduction in mortality and AKI compared to transfemoral access. However, increased experience in the use of the radial approach has led to less practice in the use of the femoral approach, which may be useful in cases of emergency, complications or inability to use the radial artery.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Transradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).