Radial vs. Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Artery Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Abstract

BackgroundWe aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of transradial vs transfemoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without cardiogenic shock. MethodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of STEMI patients who underwent transradial angiography (TRA) compared to transfemoral angiography (TFA). Our outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause mortality, severe bleeding, access site bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major vascular complications. Summary statistics are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). ResultsIn a pooled analysis of 17 RCTs with 12,118 randomized patients, the use of transradial compared to transfemoral approach in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock was associated with a significant reduction in MACE [OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.73–0.99; p = 0.04; NNT = 111; I2 = 0%)] and all-cause mortality [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.57–0.88; p < 0.01; NNT = 111; I2 = 0%)]. Severe bleeding [OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.44–0.74; p < 0.01; NNT = 77; I2 = 0%)], access-site bleeding [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.26–0.59; p < 0.01; NNT = 67; I2 = 24%)], and major vascular complications [OR of 0.31 (95% CI 0.17–0.55; p < 0.01; NNT = 125; I2 = 0%)] were lower in TRA compared to TFA. There was no difference in stroke (0.6% vs 0.5%) or recurrent myocardial infarction (2.01% vs 2.02%) between the two approaches. ConclusionsFor coronary intervention in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock, there is a clear mortality benefit with the TRA over TFA. Further studies are needed to see if this mortality benefit persists over the long-term.