TCT-825 Bleeding events are reduced and survival improved by use of radial access during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients receiving glycoprotein inhibitors

Abstract

access during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients receiving glycoprotein inhibitors Control Number: 2917 Submission Type: Abstract Presentation Format: Poster Only New Device/Innovation: No Author(s): Adam J Brown, Nikil K Rajani, Liam M McCormick, Stephen P Hoole, Nick E West Institution(s): University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom Presenter Poster: Dr Adam J Brown, MB BChir View Disclosure University of Cambridge Background: Use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is known to improve myocardial perfusion and reduce further ischemic events, but is associated with an increase in bleeding risk. Performing PPCI via radial access (rPPCI) is thought to reduce post-procedural bleeding complications and may improve overall survival. We sought to assess whether rPPCI is associated with improved outcomes in patients receiving GPI at our institution. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing PPCI for STEMI over a four-year period were included. All patients were preloaded with 600mg clopidogrel and 300mg aspirin en-route to PPCI. Interventional strategy and GPI use were left to operator discretion. Patient data and outcome measures were obtained by interrogation of notes and national databases. Bleeding complications were categorized using Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definitions. Results: 2,019 patients were included in the analysis (mean age 64.2±12.4yrs, 75.9% male), with 863 receiving GPI. Patients that received GPI were younger (62.7±11.8yrs vs. 64.8±12.6yrs, p< 0.001), more likely to be male (80.5% vs. 73.9%, p< 0.001) but had a higher incidence of cardiogenic shock (5.6% vs. 2.7%, p=0.002). Other baseline demographics were similar. Overall, BARC defined bleeding was more prevalent in those receiving GPI (BARC ≥2 3.0% vs. 0.7%, p< 0.001; BARC ≥3 2.6% vs. 0.2%, p< 0.001). However, patients undergoing rPPCI with GPI had lower bleeding rates when compared with femoral access (0.8% vs. 3.7%, p=0.05). For patients receiving GPI, rPPCI resulted in a significant improvement in 1-year survival (99.2% vs. 93.5%, p=0.01; OR 0.12, 95%CI 0.02-0.87, p=0.04). However, in patients not receiving GPI, no survival benefit for rPPCI was observed (94.4% vs. 93.7%, p=0.70; OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.44-1.71, p=0.69). Conclusions: rPPCI results in lower rates of bleeding and improved survival in patients receiving GPI during PPCI. rPPCI should be considered in patient groups where subsequent use of GPI is likely. CORONARY: STEMI and NSTEMI