Outcomes of Radial Versus Femoral Approach in Patients with St Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Abstract

Abstract Aim of the work To compare transradial and transfemoral approaches in 1ry and rescue PCI for STEMI. Methods This prospective observational study was done at Alexandria University Hospital and International Cardiac Center from January 2020 to August 2020 by recruiting every patient had met our inclusion criteria (the third universal definition of MI) admitted to the coronary care unit after doing primary or rescue PCI 200 patients were involved. Exclusion criteria were (Thrombophilia and thrombocytopenia, known hematological abnormalities, and patients with known sever peripheral vascular disease. Randomization made by a computer-generated program into two equal parallel groups that were randomly assigned to either Radial access approach or femoral access approach for primary or rescue PCI. Chest pain to time of first medical contact (FMC), and the procedural time were computed. Coronary angiography and PCI procedure were described including materials used and the intra-procedure complications. MACE (Major Adverse Cardiac Events) or other hemodynamic complications were documented. All the patients were contacted for follow up to 6 months after the procedure by interviewing with the patients via telephone or the responsible physician to determine the outcomes procedure. Results The distribution of demographic variables and risk factors were similar among 200 patients in the radial and femoral groups. There had been significant differences between the groups concerning the primary end point MACE after 6 months in favor of radial group patients with p value (0.004), there was significant deference between the two studied groups concerning the total bleeding complication with higher risk in femoral group 11% compared to radial group 3% with P value (0.02). Despite the nearly equal mean time from pain to FMC (9.01 hours in radial group and 9.2 hours in femoral group), the total procedural time was significantly longer in radial group compared to femoral group with (p value 0.037). However the rate of non-culprit vessel revascularsation was significantly higher in radial group 17% compared to 6% in femoral group with p value of (0.015). In-hospital stay was significantly shorter in the radial group patients P value (0.02). Conclusion Transradial approach is safe, and effective with a high procedural success rate as the transfemoral approach but with lower risk for bleeding vascular complications and other access site complications as hematoma especially for patients where aggressive antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy is needed, or patients who are expected to suffer from access site complications as those who need rescue PCI. Transradial approach has major additional advantages of decreasing the incidence of MACE compared to transfemoral approach. Transradial approach has another advantages of decreasing the in hospital stay.