Comparison of the Safety, Efficacy, and Procedural Characteristics Associated with Proximal and Distal Radial Access for Diagnostic Cerebral Angiography

OBJECTIVES

Radial access is an increasingly popular approach for performing cerebral angiography. There are two sites for radial artery puncture: proximal transradial access (pTRA) in the wrist and distal transradial access (dTRA) in the snuffbox. These approaches have not been directly compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive diagnostic cerebral angiograms performed at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes included fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, contrast volume, time to obtain access, procedure duration, and time to discharge home. Success rates as well as minor and major complication rates associated with each approach were also compared. Multivariate linear regression models were used to determine the relationship between access site and outcomes while adjusting for covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 287 angiograms on 244 patients met the inclusion criteria. pTRA was associated with shorter fluoroscopy time (ß -2.54, 95% CI -4.18 - -0.9, p = 0.003) and lower radiation dose (ß -242.89, 95% CI -351.55 - -134.24, p < 0.001), but not contrast volume. Time to obtain access, procedure duration, and time to discharge home were similar between approaches. A total of 10 minor complications occurred with similar rates for each approach (8 for dTRA, 2 for pTRA, p = 0.168) and there were no major complications. The conversion rate to femoral access was low (1.05% overall) and did not differ with approach.

CONCLUSION

dTRA and pTRA are associated with similarly high rates of safety and efficacy. Procedure duration, time to obtain access, and time to discharge did not differ between approaches.

Distal radial artery approach for endovascular therapy

It has been reported that the distal transradial approach (dTRA) is safe and useful for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In this study we evaluated the safety and efficacy of the dTRA for endovascular therapy (EVT). The dTRA for EVT was performed in 43 lesions from 35 patients. Approach site was determined at the discretion of the operator. Clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. Average patient age was 74.0 ± 6.5 years; 30 (86%) were male; average height was 161.1 ± 8.4 cm. Diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking habit were present in 19 (54.3%), 31 (88.6%), 29 (82.9%), and 29 (82.9%) patients, respectively. Target lesions were iliac artery in 38 (88.4%) patients, superficial femoral artery in 4 (9.3%) and renal artery in the remaining patient (2.3%). Eight lesions (18.6%) were chronic total occlusions. Thirteen (30.2%), 2 (4.7%), and 28 (65.1%) lesions were treated using 4.5, 6, and 7 French long guiding systems, respectively. All lesions were successfully treated without any procedural or access site-related complications. No additional puncture sites were required. Ankle brachial index significantly improved from 0.62 ± 0.20 to 0.92 ± 0.17 (p < 0.0001) post-treatment for the lower limbs. There were no radial artery occlusions, target lesion revascularization, or complications 1 month later. Similar to PCI, the dTRA for EVT is safe and feasible without any specific complications in carefully selected patients.

Transition from Proximal to Distal Radial Access for Diagnostic Cerebral Angiography: Learning Curve Analysis

BACKGROUND

Distal transradial access (dTRA) has several advantages compared with proximal transradial access (pTRA) for cerebral angiography. The learning curve for transitioning from pTRA to dTRA has not been described.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the first 75 diagnostic cerebral angiograms performed with dTRA by a single operator was performed. Outcomes included time for sheath insertion, sheath to first vessel time, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and contrast volume. Their associations with procedure number were evaluated with multivariate linear regressions, segmented linear regression, and locally weighted regression (LOESS).

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 56.1 years and 61.3% were female. Seventy-four of 75 angiograms were successfully completed with dTRA. There were 3 minor and no major complications. After adjusting for covariates, sheath to first vessel time (β = -0.50, P < 0.001) and procedure duration (β = -0.26, P = 0.002) were associated with procedure number. Time for sheath insertion, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and contrast volume were not associated with procedure number. Segmented linear regression identified break-points of 33 for sheath to first vessel time and 11 for procedure duration, which corresponded to the procedure number after which these outcomes trended down. LOESS models for time to sheath placement, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and radiation dose predicted minimum values between procedures 40-50.

CONCLUSIONS

Transitioning from pTRA to dTRA for diagnostic cerebral angiography is feasible and safe. The learning curve is overcome between procedures 11 and 33, and further refinement in performance occurs through procedures 40-50.

Distal Transradial Access for Diagnostic Cerebral Angiography and Neurointervention: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radial artery access for cerebral angiography is traditionally performed in the wrist. Distal transradial access in the anatomic snuffbox is an alternative with several advantages.

PURPOSE

Our aim was to review the safety and efficacy of distal transradial access for diagnostic cerebral angiography and neurointerventions.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a comprehensive search of the literature using PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE.

STUDY SELECTION

The study included all case series of at least 10 patients describing outcomes associated with distal transradial access for diagnostic cerebral angiography or a neurointervention.

DATA ANALYSIS

Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled rates of procedural success and complications.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 7 studies comprising 348 (75.8%) diagnostic cerebral angiograms and 111 (24.2%) interventions met the inclusion criteria. The pooled success rate was 95% (95% CI, 91%-98%; I² = 74.33). The pooled minor complication rate was 2% (95% CI, 1%-4%; I² = 0. No major complications were reported. For diagnostic procedures, the combined mean fluoroscopy time was 13.53 [SD, 8.82] minutes and the mean contrast dose was 74.9 [SD, 35.6] mL.

LIMITATIONS

A small number of studies met the inclusion criteria, all of them were retrospective, and none compared outcomes with proximal transradial or femoral access.

CONCLUSIONS

Early experience with distal transradial access suggests that it is a safe and effective alternative to proximal radial and femoral access for performing diagnostic cerebral angiography and interventions. Additional studies are needed to establish its efficacy and compare it with other access sites.

Reducing the cost of managing patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have an increased risk of both ischemic events and bleeding complications resulting from antithrombotic therapy. These events are particularly common in patients with a concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation, such as those with atrial fibrillation, and are associated with a substantial healthcare resource burden. Advances in procedural aspects of PCI have led to marked improvements in outcomes and a consequent reduction in the costs resulting from PCI-associated complications. Furthermore, recent randomized clinical trials have investigated the optimal antithrombotic strategy in the specific case of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, leading to a shift toward the tailoring of antithrombotic therapy according to the patient's individual stroke and bleeding risks. Here we review these recent advances, with a particular focus on the improvements in antithrombotic strategies offered by the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.

Access-Site Complications in Transfemoral Neuroendovascular Procedures: A Systematic Review of Incidence Rates and Management Strategies

BACKGROUND

The femoral artery is the most common access route for cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures. Complications of the transfemoral approach include groin hemorrhages and hematomas, retroperitoneal hematomas, pseudoaneurysms, arteriovenous fistulas, peripheral artery occlusions, femoral nerve injuries, and access-site infections. Incidence rates vary among different randomized and nonrandomized trials, and the literature lacks a comprehensive review of this subject.

OBJECTIVE

To gather data from 16 randomized clinical trials (RCT) and 17 nonrandomized cohort studies regarding femoral access-site complications for a review paper. We also briefly discuss management strategies for these complications based on the most recent literature.

METHODS

A PubMed indexed search for all neuroendovascular clinical trials, retrospective studies, and prospective studies that reported femoral artery access-site complications in neurointerventional procedures.

RESULTS

The overall access-site complication rate in RCTs is 5.13%, while in in non-RCTs, the rate is 2.78%. The most common complication in both groups is groin hematoma followed by access-site hemorrhage and femoral pseudoaneurysm. On the other hand, wound infection was the least common complication.

CONCLUSION

The transfemoral approach in neuroendovascular procedures holds risk for several complications. This review will allow further studies to compare access-site complications between the transfemoral approach and other alternative access sites, mainly the transradial approach, which is gaining a lot of interest nowadays.

Meta-analysis of bivalirudin versus heparin in transradial coronary interventions

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing transradial artery coronary intervention (TRI).

BACKGROUND

Bivalirudin and radial artery access are independently associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes. However, data supporting a strategy of combining both to achieve additive improvements in cardiovascular outcomes provide conflicting results.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of bivalirudin, in which vascular access sites were reported. The primary outcome was net adverse clinical events (NACE) at 30 days. Secondary outcomes were long-term NACE, short-, and long-term major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding.

RESULTS

We identified 10 RCTs, including 16,328 patients who underwent TRI (mean age 64.6 ± 15.7 years, 72.5% male). Bivalirudin use was associated with decreased 30-day NACE compared with heparin (6.3 vs. 7.4%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76-0.99; p = .04; number needed to treat = 91). No significant interactions were observed based on clinical presentation, administration of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa-receptor inhibitors (GPI) use. There were no significant differences between groups in any prespecified secondary outcomes. There was, however, a significant reduction of major bleeding in the bivalirudin group compared with heparin when used in combination with routine GPI (RR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.19-0.90; p = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing TRI, use of bivalirudin was associated with significantly reduced 30-day NACE compared with heparin. There was no significant difference in long term NACE, ischemic, or bleeding events compared with heparin.

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.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

INTRODUCTION

Bivalirudin and heparin are the two most commonly used anticoagulants used during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). The results of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in the era of radial access are controversial, questioning the positive impact of bivalirudin on bleeding. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the results of RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin with or without Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (GPI).

METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA statements for reporting systematic reviews. We searched the National Library of Medicine PubMed, Clinicaltrial.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to include clinical studies comparing bivalirudin with heparin in patients undergoing PCI. Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria and were reviewed for the summary.

FINDINGS

Several RCTs and meta-analyses have demonstrated the superiority of bivalirudin over heparin plus routine GPI use in terms of preventing bleeding complications but at the expense of increased risk of ischemic complications such as stent thrombosis. The hypothesis of post- PCI bivalirudin infusion to mitigate the risk of acute stent thrombosis has been tested in various RCTs with conflicting results. In comparison, heparin offers the advantage of having a reversible agent, of lower cost and reduced incidence of ischemic complications.

CONCLUSION

Bivalirudin demonstrates its superiority over heparin plus GPI with better clinical outcomes in terms of less bleeding complications, thus making it as anticoagulation of choice particularly in patients at high risk of bleeding. Further studies are warranted for head to head comparison of bivalirudin to heparin monotherapy to establish an optimal heparin dosing regimen and post-PCI bivalirudin infusion to affirm its beneficial effect in reducing acute stent thrombosis.

Superficial femoral artery stenting via radial access using R2P® Misago® stents: First-in-human report of the new R2P® system

A 73-year-old male with left critical limb ischemia was scheduled to undergo below-the-knee amputation. Prior to the amputation, he was referred to our institute for endovascular treatment. We inserted the new 7-Fr 150-cm-long guiding catheter, SlenGuide^®, into the external iliac artery from the right radial artery with the 7-Fr Glidesheath Slender^®. We implanted two R2P^® Misago^® stents with rapid-exchange, 200-cm-long shaft system in the stenosis of the left superficial femoral artery. This new stent system involves rapid-exchange and a long shaft system; furthermore, it is useful in transradial stenting in the superficial femoral artery.

Vascular Access Site and Outcomes in 58,870 Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With a Previous History of Coronary Bypass Surgery: Results From the British Cardiovascular Interventions Society National Database

OBJECTIVES

Using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) database, access site choice and outcomes of patients undergoing PCI with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were studied.

BACKGROUND

Given the influence of access site on outcomes, use of radial access in PCI-CABG warrants further investigation.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from 58,870 PCI-CABG procedures performed between 2005 and 2014. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of access site choice and its association with outcomes.

RESULTS

The number of PCI-CABG cases and the percentage of total PCI increased significantly during the study period. Femoral artery (FA) utilization fell from 90.8% in 2005 to 57.6% in 2014 (p < 0.001), with no differences in the rate of change of left versus right radial use. In contemporary study years (2012 to 2014), female sex, acute coronary syndrome presentation, chronic total occlusion intervention, and lower operator volume were independently associated with FA access. Length of stay was shortened in the radial cohort. Unadjusted outcomes including an access site complication (1.10% vs. 0.30%; p < 0.001), blood transfusion (0.20% vs. 0.04%; p < 0.001), major bleeding (1.30% vs. 0.40%; p < 0.001), and in-hospital death (1.10% vs. 0.60%; p = 0.001) were more likely to occur with FA access compared with radial access. After adjustment, although arterial complications, transfusion, and major bleeding remained more common with FA use, short- and longer-term mortality and major adverse cardiac event rates were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary practice, FA access remains predominant during PCI-CABG with case complexity associated with it use. FA use was associated with longer length of stay, and higher rates of vascular complications, major bleeding, and transfusion.

Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin in coronary artery disease patients with mild to moderate chronic kidney disease: Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have elevated bleeding and ischemic outcomes. We aim to assess the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared to heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with CKD.

METHODS

Randomized trials were searched in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases up to January 2017. Among the trials retrieved, efficacy endpoints were defined as mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Safety endpoints were reported as non-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) related major bleeding and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each outcome using a fixed effect model.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 3796 patients were included. In short-term follow up (30 days), bivalirudin significantly reduced non-CABG related major bleeding (p=0.0004) and TIMI major bleeding (p=0.007) compared to heparin plus GPIs. No significant differences were observed in rates of mortality, MI, repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and MACEs between the two groups in short- and long-term follow up (6 months to 3 years). In patients with ST elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) with concurrent CKD, the decreased non-CABG related major bleeding (p=0.04) without increasing ischemic events was also observed after short-term follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Bivalirudin is safer than and as effective as heparin plus GPIs in CAD patients with CKD. (2) Impaired renal function does not affect the safety benefits of bivalirudin. (3) Similar efficacy profiles were identified between the two groups after both short- and long-term follow up in the CAD patients with CKD.

Impact of Access Site on Bleeding and Ischemic Events in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated With Prasugrel: The ACCOAST Access Substudy

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed whether the choice of vascular access site influenced outcomes among non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients enrolled in the ACCOAST (A Comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous Coronary intervention Or as pre-treatment At the time of diagnosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction NCT01015287).

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral access (TFA) has been associated with the risk of bleeding and increased mortality that is elevated compared to transradial access (TRA) in acute coronary syndromes, although less consistently in NSTE acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) than in STE-ACS.

METHODS

The ACCOAST study evaluated a prasugrel loading dose of 60 mg given at the start of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus a split loading dose of 30 mg given at the time of diagnosis of NSTE-ACS (prior to coronary angiography), followed by 30 mg given at the start of PCI. In the study, choice of access site was at the investigator's discretion. We compared ischemic and bleeding outcomes with TFA versus those with TRA, using propensity score correction.

RESULTS

Of 4,033 patients, 1,711 (42%) underwent TRA. Use of TRA varied widely by country. TFA was not associated with significant increases in noncoronary bypass graft (CABG)-related thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) (hazard ratio [HR] for TFA = 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 3.62; p = 0.42), nor in GUSTO (Global Utilization Of Streptokinase and Tpa for Occluded arteries) or STEEPLE (Safety and Efficacy of Enoxaparin in PCI) major bleeding after propensity score correction. TFA, however, increased combined non-CABG TIMI major or minor bleeding (HR for TFA = 2.34; 95% CI: 1.17 to 4.69; p = 0.017). Primary ischemic outcomes did not differ by access site, albeit individual endpoint analysis suggested an association between TFA with an increase in urgent revascularizations and reduced risk of procedure-related stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ACCOAST trial, TFA did not significantly increase TIMI major bleeding, although TRA was associated with a reduction in TIMI major or minor bleeding. Further study is needed to determine whether wider application of radial approach to NSTE-ACS patients at high risk for bleeding improves overall outcomes. (A Comparison of Prasugrel at PCI or Time of Diagnosis of Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [ACCOAST]; NCT01015287).

Impact of anticoagulation strategy with bivalirudin or heparin on nonaccess site bleeding in percutaneous coronary interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Transradial approach has significantly decreased the rate of access site bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), therefore potentially mitigating the benefits offered by bivalirudin in lowering major bleeding complications as compared to heparin. However, nonaccess site bleeding, that represent the majority of hemorrhagic complications, still carry negative prognostic consequences for these patients and no study has so far defined the exact impact of bivalirudin on nonaccess site bleeding, that was therefore the aim of present meta-analysis.

METHODS AND STUDY OUTCOMES

Literature archives (Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane) and main scientific sessions were scanned comparing bivalirudin vs. heparin in patients undergoing PCI. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of nonaccess site bleeding within 30 days. Secondary endpoints were 30 days mortality and the occurrence of access-site bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of nine randomized clinical trials were finally included, involving 32,587 patients, 55.8% randomized to bivalirudin. Bivalirudin significantly reduced the rate of nonaccess site bleeding (2.6 vs. 3.8%, OR [95% CI] = 0.68 [0.60-0.77], P < 0.00001, P_het  = 0.10). However, the reduction of hemorrhagic events was more pronounced when bivalirudin was compared to heparin plus glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors than when it was compared to heparin alone (r = -0.01 (-0.02; -0.001), P = 0.02). Similar results were observed for access-site bleeding (OR [95% CI] = 0.67 [0.57-0.79], P < 0.000001, P_het  = 0.10), with a significant role of glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors use (r = -0.02 (-0.04; -0.004), P = 0.017). Moreover, the observed benefits in hemorrhagic complications did not translate into mortality benefits (OR [95% CI] = 0.89 [0.76-1.05], P = 0.18; P_het  = 0.12; r = 0.21 (-1.12; 1.53), P = 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis shows that bivalirudin can provide a significant reduction of both access and nonaccess site bleeding in patients undergoing PCI. However, these hemorrhagic benefits did not impact on survival, and moreover, were significantly conditioned by the association of heparin with potent antithrombotic strategies, such as glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors, rather than by heparin or bivalirudin alone. Therefore, we could not provide any clinical evidence for the routine use of bivalirudin as preferred anticoagulation strategy for PCI. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Approximately 3.7 million people died from acute coronary syndrome worldwide in 2012. Acute coronary syndrome, also known as myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris, is caused by a sudden blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Percutaneous coronary intervention is often used for acute coronary syndrome, but previous systematic reviews on the effects of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents have shown conflicting results with regard to myocardial infarction; have not fully taken account of the risk of random and systematic errors; and have not included all relevant randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in people with acute coronary syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS from their inception to January 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registers, the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases, and pharmaceutical company websites. In addition, we searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome. We included trials irrespective of publication type, status, date, or language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed our published protocol and the methodological recommendations of Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risks of systematic error by bias domains. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risks of random errors. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. Our primary assessment time point was at maximum follow-up. We assessed the quality of the evidence by the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials randomising a total of 12,503 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence according to GRADE was low to very low. We included 22 trials where the participants presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 1 trial where participants presented with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 2 trials where participants presented with a mix of acute coronary syndromes.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. The absolute risk of death was 6.97% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 7.74% in the bare-metal stents group based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.03, 11,250 participants, 21 trials/22 comparisons, low-quality evidence). The absolute risk of a major cardiovascular event was 6.36% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 6.63% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11, 10,939 participants, 19 trials/20 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we did not have sufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on either all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events at maximum follow-up.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed evidence of a benefit when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of a serious adverse event. The absolute risk of a serious adverse event was 18.04% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 23.01% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.86, 11,724 participants, 22 trials/23 comparisons, low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result. When assessing each specific type of adverse event included in the serious adverse event outcome separately, the majority of the events were target vessel revascularisation. When target vessel revascularisation was analysed separately, meta-analysis showed evidence of a benefit of drug-eluting stents, and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09, 9248 participants, 14 trials/15 comparisons, very low-quality evidence) or myocardial infarction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18, 10,217 participants, 18 trials/19 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of the Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction.No trials reported results on quality of life or angina.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggests that drug-eluting stents may lead to fewer serious adverse events compared with bare-metal stents without increasing the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. However, our Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there currently was not enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of 10% for all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, or myocardial infarction, and there were no data on quality of life or angina. The evidence in this review was of low to very low quality, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented in this review.More randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents for acute coronary syndrome are to be assessed properly. More data are needed on the outcomes all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, quality of life, and angina to reduce the risk of random error.

Association between arterial access site and anticoagulation strategy on major bleeding and mortality: A historical cohort analysis in the Veteran population

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown reduction in major bleeding with trans-radial intervention (TRI) compared with trans-femoral intervention (TFI), and with use of bivalirudin compared with heparin+glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI). We compared major bleeding, mortality and the interaction between arterial access site and the anticoagulant used for PCI in Veterans.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 1192 consecutive patients who underwent PCI at a VA hospital between 2006 and 2012 was divided into TFI-heparin (n=192), TFI-bivalirudin (n=272), TRI-heparin (n=274) and TRI-bivalirudin (n=454) groups. Primary outcomes were in-hospital major bleeding, in-hospital and 1-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital MI, in-hospital and 1-year MACE and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE - composite of major bleeding+MACE).

RESULTS

Femoral access was associated with a significantly increased risk of major bleeding compared with radial access (OR 11.87, p<0.001). Correspondingly, radial access was protective against major bleeding compared with femoral access (OR 0.128, p<0.01), but did not lower mortality or MACE by itself. Severe anemia was the only predictor of in-hospital all-cause mortality (OR=27.62, p<0.008). Presence of anemia and age>70 predicted 1-year mortality, whereas major bleeding and anemia predicted 1-year MACE. An interaction was noted between anticoagulant and access site, such that heparin showed significantly greater major bleeding in the femoral group compared with the radial group. Bivalirudin resulted in similar risk of bleeding, regardless of access site. There was a synergistic interaction between radial access and heparin (HR 0.38, p<0.05), but not radial access and bivalirudin, on reduction in 1-year NACE.

CONCLUSION

Radial access for PCI is associated with reduction in major bleeding, but does not have an effect on in-patient or 1-year MACE and mortality. Major bleeding is associated with poor short and intermediate term outcomes. In addition, anemia is strongly associated with increased in-patient and 1-year mortality. There is a differential effect of heparin but not bivalirudin on major bleeding, depending on the access site. There is no synergism between radial access and bivalirudin in lowering the composite outcome of MACE and major bleeding at 1year.

Efficiency and safety of bivalirudin in patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention via radial access: A subgroup analysis from the bivalirudin in acute myocardial infarction versus heparin and GPI plus heparin trial

OBJECTIVES

To explore the efficiency and safety of bivalirudin in patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention via radial access.

BACKGROUND

Bivalirudin reduces bleeding risks over heparin in patients undergoing PCI. However, bleeding advantages of bivalirudin in patients undergoing transradial intervention is uncertain.

METHODS

In the BRIGHT trial, 1,723 patients underwent emergency PCI via radial access, with 576 patients in the bivalirudin arm, 576 in the heparin arm and 571 in the heparin plus tirofiban arm. The primary outcome was 30-day net adverse clinical event (NACE), defined as a composite of major cardiac and cerebral events or any bleeding.

RESULTS

30-day NACE occurred in 5.7% with bivalirudin, 7.8% with heparin alone (vs. bivalirudin, P = 0.159), and 10.3% with heparin plus tifofiban (vs. bivalirudin, P = 0.004). The 30-day bleeding rate was 0.9% for bivalirudin, 2.3% for heparin (vs. bivalirudin, P = 0.057), and 5.8% for heparin plus tirofiban (vs. bivalirudin, P < 0.001). Major cardiac and cerebral events (4.9 vs. 5.7 vs. 4.6%, P = 0.899), stent thrombosis (0.5 vs. 0.5 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.899) and acquired thrombocytopenia (0.2 vs. 0.5 vs. 0.9%, P = 0.257) at 30 days were similar among three arms. The interaction test for PCI access and randomized treatment showed no significance on all bleeding (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The bleeding benefit of bivalirudin was independent of artery access. Bivalirudin lead to statistical reduction on bleeding risks in comparison to heparin plus tirofiban, and only small numerical difference in comparison to heparin, with comparable risks of ischemic events and stent thrombosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing emergency transradial PCI. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Using a Single Transradial MAC Guiding Catheter for Coronary Angiography and Intervention in Patients with ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the impact of using a single dedicated radial guiding catheter in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via radial access.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of using a single guiding catheter (MAC 3.5) for left and right coronary angiography and intervention on catheterization laboratory door to balloon (C2B) time in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

Three hundred and sixty patients were randomized (1:1) to using a single MAC3.5 guiding catheter (MAC group) or diagnostic Tiger catheter first for coronary angiography followed by guiding catheter selection (control group) for intervention. The primary outcomes were C2B. The secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days and 6 months.

RESULTS

Median C2B time (16.6 min, interquartile range [IQR] 14.3-20.2 min vs 19.0 min, IQR 14.3-23.1 min; P < 0.001), total procedure time (31.0 min, IQR 26.4-37.7 min vs 34.8 min, IQR 29.7-42.5 min, P < 0.001), and overall fluoroscopy time (8.0 min, IQR 6.4-10.4 min vs 8.8 min, IQR 6.5-12.2, P = 0.04) were significantly reduced in MAC Group. Contrast consumption were similar among both groups (103 ± 37 ml vs 110 ± 41 ml, P = 0.16). The MACE rate in MAC group and control group was 3.3 versus 4.4% (P = 0.586) at 30 days and 3.3 versus 5.0% (P = 0.429) at 6 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A single MAC3.5 guiding catheter for coronary angiography and intervention can shorten C2B time, procedure time, and fluoroscopy time. (RAPID study; NCT01759043).

Comparative Efficacy of Transradial Versus Transfemoral Approach for Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Transradial artery (TRA) approach is associated with fewer vascular complications and reduced mortality in patients at high risk compared with transfemoral approach (TFA). The objective of our study was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients who had coronary angiography by TRA and TFA over the course of hospital implementation of this approach. We included 12,928 patients from Baylor University Medical Center and Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital, Dallas, Texas, who underwent a coronary angiography from January 2008 to March 2015. To control for selection bias and the learning curve, a nested matched study design was used for patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with TRA patients matched with TFA by age (±2 years) and calendar year of the procedure in a ratio of 1:3. TRA for PCI increased from nearly 0% in 2008 to 9% in 2014. Including patients from 2011 to 2015 for the analysis, patients with TFA were older (65 ± 12 vs 64 ± 11) and had lower mean body mass index (30 ± 7 vs 33 ± 9 kg/m(2)) than patients with TRA. Patients with TRA had less bleeding, dialysis, pseudoaneurysm, and access site hematomas than the patients with TRA (0.7% vs 0%; p = 0.02). By a conditional logistic regression, we observed fewer complications, readmissions, and in-hospital deaths among TRA patients than the matched TFA patients. In conclusion, patients undergoing angiography with/without PCI through TRA had fewer complications, readmissions, and a shorter length of hospital stay after procedure versus TFA at our hospital.

Radial access in patients with acute coronary syndrome without persistent ST-segment elevation: Systematic review, collaborative meta-analysis, and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Consistent evidence of benefit exists for radial access (RA) in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients with non ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) have a more varied ischemic and bleeding profile. No randomized trial of vascular access ever focused on NSTE-ACS and landmark studies did not provide conclusive results in this heterogeneous subset of patients.

METHODS

We assessed in a meta-analysis whether RA is associated with improved outcomes in NSTE-ACS patients. Included studies had to meet the following criteria: 1) enrolling patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing invasive management; 2) reporting outcomes with respect to RA as compared with femoral access (FA); 3) reporting short-term (procedural, in-hospital and up to 30-day) or long-term clinical outcomes. Studies were pooled with fixed and random effects models and heterogeneity was investigated by weighted meta-regression.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included encompassing 131.339 patients, 46.451 receiving RA and 84.888 receiving FA. Thirty-day mortality and MACE were lower with RA (p<0.001 with fixed effects, p=NS with random effects model), but these results depended on one large observational database. Major bleeding was consistently reduced by RA (p<0.001), albeit an inverse relationship with the proportion of patients in each study receiving FA and experiencing major bleeding was evident. The association of RA with reduced long-term mortality was of borderline significance (p=0.054 with random-effects, p=0.001 with fixed-effect model) and also depended on major bleeding in FA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

RA is associated with better outcomes as compared with FA in NSTE-ACS, although this observation is influenced by nonrandomized comparisons. Large heterogeneity exists among studies.

REGISTRATION

This study is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42015029459).

Why we need intravenous antiplatelet agents

Oral ADP-receptor antagonists combined with aspirin are the standard for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the oral route of administration of ADP-receptor antagonists leaves them vulnerable to unpredictable and often inadequate platelet inhibition at the time of PCI, while their prolonged effects often lead to the decision not to load them prior to PCI. Intravenous antiplatelet agents, including glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) and cangrelor, a reversible P2Y12 inhibitor, address these shortcomings. In June 2015, the US FDA approved cangrelor for the prevention of thrombotic events associated with coronary stenting. This review examines the current state of peri-PCI DAPT and demonstrates that the selective use of GPIs and intravenous ADP-antagonist agents reduces the risk of periprocedural thrombosis.

Frequency and prognostic significance of access site and non-access site bleeding and impact of choice of antithrombin therapy in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The EUROMAX trial

BACKGROUND

The overall impact of post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) bleeding on long term prognosis after acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has been established, but it may differ between access and non-access related bleeding events. The impact of antithrombin choice on bleeding may also differ according to the origin of the bleed. We sought to determine the origin of bleeding relative to the access site, its prognostic significance and the respective impact of antithrombin therapy in the EUROMAX trial.

METHODS

We performed a blinded review of the case records of all TIMI major or minor bleeds in the EUROMAX trial and assigned them in one of 2 categories: access site bleeds (ASB), or rest of bleeds (ROB). Incidence of bleeding for each category was assessed according to randomization to antithrombotic treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 231 out of 2198 patients suffered a TIMI major/minor bleed (10.5%) and ASB accounted for 48.5%, while ROB for 51.5% of the bleeds. Thirty day mortality was 2.5% (50/1967) for patients without a bleed, 2.7% (3/112, p=0.76 vs. no bleed) for patients with ASB, and 10.9% (13/119, p<0.0001 vs. no bleed) for ROB patients. The use of bivalirudin reduced both ASB and ROB with relative risk reductions of 34% and 46% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary primary PCI, bleeding originates with equal frequency either at or away from the access site. Access site bleeds were not associated with an excess in 30day mortality, but the rest of the bleeds were. Bivalirudin is associated with a lower risk of bleeding irrespective of origin.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01087723.

Costs and Benefits Associated With Transradial Versus Transfemoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in China

BACKGROUND

Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been increasingly adopted in clinical practice, given its potential advantages over transfemoral intervention; however, the impact of different access strategies on costs and clinical outcomes remains poorly defined, especially in the developing world.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using data from a consecutive cohort of 5306 patients undergoing PCI in China in 2010, we compared total hospital costs and in-hospital outcomes for transradial intervention (TRI) and transfemoral intervention. Patients receiving TRI (n=4696, 88.5%) were slightly younger (mean age 57.4 versus 59.5 years), less often women (21.6% versus 33.1%), more likely to undergo PCI for single-vessel disease, and less likely to undergo PCI for triple-vessel or left main diseases. The unadjusted total hospital costs were 57 900 Chinese yuan (¥57 900; equivalent to 9190 US dollars [$9190]) for TRI and ¥67 418 ($10,701) for transfemoral intervention. After adjusting for all observed patient and procedural characteristics using the propensity score inverse probability weighting method, TRI was associated with a lower total cost (adjusted difference ¥8081 [$1283]). More than 80% of the cost difference was related to lower PCI-related costs (adjusted difference -¥5162 [-$819]), which were likely driven by exclusive use of vascular closure devices in transfemoral intervention, and lower hospitalization costs (-¥1399 [-$222]). Patients receiving TRI had shorter length of stay and were less likely to experience major adverse cardiac events or post-PCI bleeding. These differences were consistent among clinically relevant subgroups with acute myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, and stable angina.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing PCI, TRI was associated with lower cost and favorable clinical outcomes compared with transfemoral intervention.

Transradial intervention for chronic total occlusion at the external iliac artery using a bidirectional approach through a single guiding catheter

A 64-year-old male with intermittent claudication due to long chronic total occlusion of external iliac artery was successfully treated with a bi-directional approach. The retrograde guidewire was inserted into the ipsilateral internal iliac artery to the distal femoral artery through a collateral channel. The procedure was performed with a single guiding catheter through a single puncture of the left radial artery. Avoid puncture of the femoral artery may be less invasive with fewer bleeding complications.

Access-site bleeding and radial artery occlusion in transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention: influence of adjunctive antiplatelet therapy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate access-site complications in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with a transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention relative to three different P2Y12 platelet inhibitors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 334 consecutive patients (76.9% men, age: 59.4±9.1 years) treated by one of the following: clopidogrel (n=118), prasugrel (n=102), and ticagrelor (n=114). The use of the IIb/IIIa inhibitor, abciximab, was left to the operators' discretion. The time needed to achieve patent hemostasis, compression time, and local complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were similar in all three P2Y12 platelet inhibitor groups. Abciximab was used in 72 (21.6%) patients. Administration of abciximab was associated with a higher incidence of grade II and III hematomas (23.6 vs. 5.0%, P<0.0001, and 5.6 vs. 1.1%, P=0.041, respectively). Among different platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitor groups, the incidences of hematomas grade II and III were similar in patients who did (P≥0.14) and did not (P≥0.31) receive abciximab. There were no grade IV or V hematomas in any of the groups. Patent hemostasis was achieved faster (24.5±13.4 vs. 43.5±30.0 min, P<0.0001) and compression time was shorter (113.2±53.6 vs. 217.8±115.5 min, P<0.0001) when abciximab was not used. Radial artery occlusion occurred in one (0.3%) patient.

CONCLUSION

After transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention, early patent hemostasis and short artery compression times were associated with a higher incidence of local hematomas. The incidence of hematomas was dependent on the use of abciximab, but unrelated to the type of P2Y12 inhibitor used. All hematomas were without clinical consequences.

Meta-Analysis of Radial Versus Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

Radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to reduce mortality and vascular complications compared to femoral access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. However, efficacy and safety of radial access PCI in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS) is not well understood. A systematic search of electronic databases was performed through July 2015 to search and identify relevant studies. We evaluated the following short-term outcomes: all-cause mortality, major bleeding, access site bleeding, and need for blood transfusions. In addition, we evaluated 1-year mortality. Studies were pooled using random effects model. Nine studies including a total of 220,126 patients (radial approach: 94,663 patients [43%], femoral approach: 125,463 patients [57%]) were included in the analysis. On pooled analysis, no significant difference in incidence of short-term all-cause mortality was found between radial and femoral access (odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.07, p = 0.12). Radial access was associated with significant reduction in major bleeding (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.73, p = 0.0002), access-site bleeding (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78, p = 0.007), and need for blood transfusions (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91, p = 0.02). Furthermore, the 1-year mortality was significantly lower in radial approach (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95, p = 0.02). In conclusion, in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI, radial access is associated with decreased bleeding and access-site complications.

SCAI Expert consensus statement: Evaluation, management, and special considerations of cardio-oncology patients in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (endorsed by the cardiological society of india, and sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologıa intervencionista)

In the United States alone, there are currently approximately 14.5 million cancer survivors, and this number is expected to increase to 20 million by 2020. Cancer therapies can cause significant injury to the vasculature, resulting in angina, acute coronary syndromes (ACS), stroke, critical limb ischemia, arrhythmias, and heart failure, independently from the direct myocardial or pericardial damage from the malignancy itself. Consequently, the need for invasive evaluation and management in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) for such patients has been increasing. In recognition of the need for a document on special considerations for cancer patients in the CCL, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) commissioned a consensus group to provide recommendations based on the published medical literature and on the expertise of operators with accumulated experience in the cardiac catheterization of cancer patients.

The Transradial Approach and Antithrombotic Therapy: Rationale and Outcomes

This article reviews antithrombotic strategies for percutaneous coronary interventions according to the access site and the current evidence with the aim of limiting ischemic complications and preventing radial artery occlusion (RAO). Prevention of RAO should be part of the quality control of any radial program. The incidence of RAO postcatheterization and interventions should be determined initially using the echo-duplex and then frequently assessed using the more cost-effective pulse oximetry technique. Any evidence of higher risk of RAO should prompt internal analysis and multidisciplinary mechanisms to be put in place.

Heparin is Not Inferior to Bivalirudin in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Focusing on the Effect of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor Use: A Meta-Analysis

Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin (Biv) versus heparin (Hep) with or without similar usage rate of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The PubMed and EMbase were searched. Randomized trials comparing Biv versus Hep were eligible for inclusion. With imbalanced GPI use, Biv had significantly lower major bleeding (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.83) without difference in mortality (pooled RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80-1.14). With comparable GPI use, no significant difference was observed in major bleeding (pooled RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10) and mortality (pooled RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.85-1.50). With no GPI use, Biv was associated with numerically higher mortality (pooled RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.83-1.65) without significant difference in major bleeding (pooled RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.64-1.02). In conclusion, when comparing different anticoagulants during PCI, the effect of GPIs should not be underestimated. Heparin as such was found noninferior to Biv.

Clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide in coronary stenting

Platelet adhesion and aggregation at the site of coronary stenting can have catastrophic clinical and economic consequences. Therefore, effective platelet inhibition is vital during and after percutaneous coronary intervention. Eptifibatide is an intravenous antiplatelet agent that blocks the final common pathway of platelet aggregation and thrombus formation by binding to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptors on the surface of platelets. In clinical studies, eptifibatide was associated with a significant reduction of mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, recent trials conducted in the era of dual antiplatelet therapy and newer anticoagulants failed to demonstrate similar results. The previously seen favorable benefit of eptifibatide was mainly offset by the increased risk of bleeding. Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend its use as an adjunct in high-risk patients who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional anticoagulants (heparin or enoxaparin), who are not otherwise at high risk of bleeding. In patients receiving bivalirudin (a newer safer anticoagulant), routine use of eptifibatide is discouraged except in select situations (eg, angiographic complications). Although older pharmacoeconomic studies favor eptifibatide, in the current era of P2Y12 inhibitors and newer safer anticoagulants, the increased costs associated with bleeding make the routine use of eptifibatide an economically nonviable option. The cost-effectiveness of eptifibatide with the use of strategies that decrease the bleeding risk (eg, transradial access) is unknown. This review provides an overview of key clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide well into the current era of potent antiplatelet agents, novel safer anticoagulants, and contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention.

[Procedural aspects in primary PCI: arterial access, stent selection, thrombectomy and treatment of non-culprit lesions]

Acute myocardial infarction was one of the most common causes of death in Germany in 2011. According to the guidelines of the European Society for Cardiology, systemic fibrinolysis and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are the methods of choice for acute treatment. Primary PCI should be given priority due to its superiority. The transradial access should be preferred due to the lower bleeding complication rate. In the selection of stents the new generation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are superior to the first generation of bare metal stents (BMS). It has now been demonstrated that the incident rates of DES (e.g. mortality, target vessel revascularization, early and late stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction) are significantly lower. For bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) long-term results for the use in treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are not yet available but initial results are very promising. However, the selection of a stent needs to be done on an individual basis in order to do justice to all aspects. Data with respect to thrombectomy in acute treatment are heterogeneous. Currently, a thorough consideration of all aspects is necessary because thrombus aspiration can also be associated with an increased rate of incidents. In a state of hemodynamic stability only so-called culprit lesions should currently be treated with a stent. Elective interventions on further stenoses should be carried out after consideration of individual factors and if necessary evaluation of the hemodynamic relevance.

Radial versus femoral access for angioplasty of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction with second-generation drug-eluting stents

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Invasive and pharmacological treatment of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction reduces the rate of ischemic events but not bleeding complications. The objective of this study was to compare clinical results and bleeding complications between femoral and radial access routes in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS

An evaluation was performed of the population of the Examination study, a randomized, multicenter, clinical trial that included 1498 patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction who underwent emergency angioplasty. Subanalysis of this population was conducted to compare patients by type of access (femoral vs radial). The primary end point was a composite of: all-cause death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and bleeding.

RESULTS

Femoral and radial access routes were used in 825 (55%) and 673 (45%) patients, respectively. More bleeding complications (major and minor) were seen with femoral access than radial access (5.9% vs 2.8%; P<.004), largely due to a greater incidence of minor bleeding with femoral access (4.6% vs 1.9%; P=.005). After adjustment for confounders, survival analysis showed a reduction in the primary composite end point in patients with radial access (hazard ratio=0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.96; P=.022).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction, the radial approach is an effective technique that improves prognosis and reduces bleeding complications.

Transradial percutaneous coronary interventions in acute coronary syndrome

Transradial access (TRA) is becoming increasingly used worldwide for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after acute coronary syndromes (ACS). TRA compared with transfemoral access has been noted to improve clinical outcomes in clinical trials and large registry cohort studies. However, much of the benefits of TRA PCI are noted in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI, where TRA PCI has been associated with reductions in major bleeding events and potentially lower short- and long-term mortality rates. Although much less data exist for TRA PCI in unstable angina and/or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, similar reductions in bleeding and mortality have not been consistently described. Differences in outcome benefit with TRA PCI among various ACS subtypes may be attributable to the potentially increased inherent risk of periprocedural bleeding in STEMI compared with unstable angina and/or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. Pre- and intra-procedural factors associated with STEMI treatment, such as use of pharmacoinvasive therapy and aggressive antithrombotic regimens likely increase bleeding risk in patients. In conclusion, this review describes the evidence for TRA PCI across the spectrum of ACS and highlights why differences in clinical benefit may exist among ACS subtypes.

Comparison of procedural and long-term outcomes between transradial and transfemoral approach in one-stage intervention for triple vessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, procedural, and long-term outcomes by the transradial (TR) approach as compared to transfemoral (TF) approach in patients with triple vessel coronary artery disease undergoing one-stage percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND

The feasibility, safety, and efficacy between the TR and TF approach for coronary interventional treatment have been compared in some complex situations including AMI and unprotected left main disease. However, in terms of triple vessel disease (3VD) intervention, there has been no comparison regarding procedural and long-term outcomes between the TR and TF approach.

METHODS

A total of 4,974 consecutive patients (TR n = 3,856, TF n = 1,118), who were diagnosed with 3VD without LM disease and underwent one-stage percutaneous revascularization, were enrolled in the study. Procedural results and clinical outcomes were obtained through database and follow-up. We used the propensity score matching method and obtained 930 pairs of patients with comparable baseline data in order to compare the procedural and long-term outcome between TR and TF groups. In the study cohort, risk reduction of all the clinical outcomes were evaluated with Cox's proportional-hazards models. Cumulative incidences concerning safety and efficacy of the cohort were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and a comparison was made utilizing the log-rank test.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Regarding procedural results, no significant differences were observed between the 2 groups, with the exception of a decreased hospital stay (TR 7.49 ± 4.46 days vs. TF 8.63 ± 6.23 days, P < 0.0001) and fewer bleedings (TR 1.0% vs. TF 2.9, P = 0.003) in the TRI group. After an average 21-month follow-up, the all-cause mortality (TR 1.7% vs. TF 4.2%, P = 0.0014; HR 0.44, 0.25-0.79) was significantly lower with TRI patients. Other clinical outcomes were comparable between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared to TFI, TRI for 3VD intervention is feasible, safe, and associated with similar procedural success, shorter hospitalization, reduced bleeding, lower incidence of death, and comparable long-term efficacy.

Impact of baseline hemorrhagic risk on the benefit of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in patients treated with coronary angioplasty: a meta-regression analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Bivalirudin significantly reduces 30-day major and minor bleeding compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH), while resulting in similar or lower rates of ischemic events in both patients with stable and unstable coronary disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials to evaluate the impact of bivalirudin compared with UFH, with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPI), on the rates of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and major bleeding.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials with >100 patients comparing bivalirudin (±provisional GPI) with UFH with either routine or provisional GPI in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The principal efficacy end points were mortality and MI within 30 day, whereas major bleeding was the principal safety end point. We assessed the benefit of bivalirudin for each efficacy end point relative to the baseline bleeding risk, using the control (UFH) major bleeding rate as proxy for that risk.

RESULTS

A total of 12 randomized trials that enrolled 33,261 patients were included. Overall, there was no significant difference in mortality and MI between bivalirudin monotherapy and UFH (±GPI), whereas major bleeding was significantly lower with bivalirudin. Bivalirudin reduced major and minor bleeding across the entire bleeding risk spectrum.

CONCLUSIONS

Bivalirudin significantly reduces major and minor bleeding regardless of the estimated baseline hemorrhagic risk.

Results of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients ≥75 years treated by the transradial approach

Previous trials in elderly patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have not shown a definitive benefit of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) by transfemoral approach over thrombolysis. The transradial approach (TRA) is associated with a significant decrease in mortality, MACE (Major Adverse Cardiac Event), and serious access site complications compared with the transfemoral approach. We have evaluated clinical outcomes in a cohort of real-life unselected ≥75-year-old patients with STEMI treated by TRA-PPCI. This is a single-center prospective, observational registry of consecutive patients with STEMI who underwent PPCI between February 2007 and February 2013. MACE was defined as death, reinfarction, or stroke. A total of 307 patients were treated by PPCI, 293 (95.1%) with TRA-PPCI (mean age 80 ± 2 years, 42% women). Patients had high co-morbidity levels (cardiogenic shock on admission 8.5%, previous myocardial infarction 11.6%, diabetes 30.4%, previous renal failure 25.6%, previous PCI 9.6%, and peripheral arterial disease 14.3%); IIbIIIa inhibitors were used in 45.1% of patients. Severe bleeding and need for transfusion were recorded for 6.5% and 9.9% of patients, respectively. In-hospital mortality, 1-year mortality, and 1-year MACE were 11.9%, 17.4%, and 22.2%, respectively. Excluding 25 patients with cardiogenic shock on admission, the in-hospital mortality, 1-year mortality, and 1-year MACE were 7.8%, 13.1%, and 17.9%, respectively. In conclusion, TRA-PPCI was feasible in the vast majority of elderly patients with STEMI. In-hospital mortality, 1-year mortality, and 1-year MACE were lower than reported for transfemoral access, suggesting a benefit of the TRA in these patients.

Consensus document on the radial approach in percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: position paper by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care** and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology

Radial access use has been growing steadily but, despite encouraging results, still varies greatly among operators, hospitals, countries and continents. Twenty years from its introduction, it was felt that the time had come to develop a common evidence-based view on the technical, clinical and organisational implications of using the radial approach for coronary angiography and interventions. The European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) has, therefore, appointed a core group of European and non-European experts, including pioneers of radial angioplasty and operators with different practices in vascular access supported by experts nominated by the Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Their goal was to define the role of the radial approach in modern interventional practice and give advice on technique, training needs, and optimal clinical indications.