Access For Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Research Articles

Radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Trial sequential analysis

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results about the impact of transradial access (TRA) versus transfemoral access (TFA) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We performed a trial sequential analysis (TSA) of RCTs comparing TRA and TFA in patients with STEMI. The outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality, major bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and access site complications. A total of 17 studies with 11,992 patients were included in the current TSA. The TRA group had lower 30-day mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.90, P = .003), major bleeding (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.79, P = .0001), MACE (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.93, P = .01), and access site complications (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.28-0.48, P < .00001). There was no difference in MI and stroke between the 2groups. Applying TSA boundaries, the z-curve for 30-day mortality, major bleeding, MACE and access site complications crossed the conventional and the TSA boundaries, indicating firm evidence for better outcomes in the TRA group. For MI and stroke, the z-curve failed to cross the conventional and the TSA boundaries for both outcomes, indicating lack of signals of benefit or harm. In the current TSA, the available data from RCTs support improved 30-day mortality, major bleeding, MACE and access site complication rates in STEMI patients treated by PCI through the radial access.

Access to reperfusion therapy and mortality outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction under universal health coverage in Thailand

BackgroundEvidence on access to reperfusion therapy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and associated mortality in developing countries is scarce. This study determined time trends in the nationally aggregated reperfusion and mortality, examined distribution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) utilization across provinces, and assessed the reperfusion-mortality association in Thailand that achieved universal health coverage in 2002.MethodsData on hospitalization with STEMI in 2011–2017 of 69,031 Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) beneficiaries were used for estimating changes in the national aggregates of % reperfusion and mortality by a time-series analysis. Geographic distribution of PCI-capable hospitals and PCI recipients was illustrated per provinces. The reperfusion-mortality association was determined using the propensity-score matching of individual patients and panel data analysis at the hospital level. The exposure is a presence of PCI or thrombolysis. Outcomes are all-cause mortality within 30 and 180 days after an index hospitalization.ResultsIn 2011–2017, the PCI recipients increased annually 5.7 percentage (%) points and thrombolysis-only recipients decreased 2.2% points. The 30-day and 180-day mortalities respectively decreased annually 0.20 and 0.27% points among the PCI recipients, and they increased 0.79 and 0.59% points among the patients receiving no reperfusion over the same period. Outside Bangkok, the provinces with more than half of the patients receiving PCI increased from 4 provinces of PCI-capable hospitals in 2011 to 37 provinces, which included the neighboring provinces of the PCI-capable hospitals in 2017. Patients undergoing reperfusion had lower 30-day and 180-day mortalities respectively by 19.6 and 21.1% points for PCI, and by 14.1 and 15.1% points for thrombolysis only as compared with no reperfusion. The use of PCI was associated with decreases in 30-day and 180-day mortalities similarly by 5.4–5.5% points as compared with thrombolysis only. A hospital with 1% higher in the recipients of PCI had lower mortalities within 30 and 180 days by approximately 0.21 and 0.20%, respectively.ConclusionsPatients with STEMI in Thailand experienced increasing PCI access and the use of PCI was associated with lower mortality compared with thrombolysis only. This is an evidence of progress toward a universal coverage of high-cost and effective health care.

Influence of Bleeding Risk on Outcomes of Radial and Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis From the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial

BackgroundRadial artery access has been shown to reduce mortality and bleeding events, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Despite this, interventional cardiologists experienced in femoral artery access still prefer that route for percutaneous coronary intervention. Little is known regarding the merits of each vascular access in patients stratified by their risk of bleeding. MethodsPatients from the Global Leaders trial were dichotomized into low or high risk of bleeding by the median of the PRECISE-DAPT score. Clinical outcomes were compared at 30 days. ResultsIn the overall population, there were no statistical differences between radial and femoral access in the rate of the primary end point, a composite of all-cause mortality, or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.15). Radial access was associated with a significantly lower rate of the secondary safety end point, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84). Compared by bleeding risk strata, in the high bleeding score population, the primary (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.85; P = 0.012; Pinteraction = 0.019) and secondary safety (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; P = 0.030; Pinteraction = 0.631) end points favoured radial access. In the low bleeding score population, however, the differences in the primary and secondary safety end points between radial and femoral artery access were no longer statistically significant. ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the outcomes of mortality or new Q-wave MI and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding favour radial access in patients with a high, but not those with a low, risk of bleeding. Because this was not a primary analysis, it should be considered hypothesis generating.

469 Cost-Effectiveness of Radial Access Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome

469 Cost-Effectiveness of Radial Access Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome

Barriers to use of radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention.

The aim of this study was to identify barriers to transradial access percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Transradial access yields fewer vascular complications, earlier ambulation, and more patient comfort. However, the adoption to practice is slow, and transfemoral access is still commonly used. We identified all PCIs done by one operator in a radial-first trainee-driven practice. The individual charts were reviewed for all PCIs using femoral access. Reasons for not using radial access were identified. Descriptive statistics were used to report reasons for not using transradial access. Analyses were performed on a per-procedure basis. Of 1,948 PCIs, 1,790 (92%) were via radial access and 158 (8%) via femoral access. Femoral access was used to bail out unsuccessful radial access in 21 PCIs (13% of all femoral PCIs, 1% of all PCIs). Radial access was unsuccessful due to failure to cannulate radial artery, radial artery spasm, and radial loop in majority of radial access failure PCIs (n = 13). Femoral access was used as a primary strategy in 137 PCIs (87% of all femoral PCIs, 7% of all PCIs), mostly due to undetectable radial artery pulse (both left and right) (n = 40). Radial access can be used for PCI safely and effectively. Inadequate radial pulse is the main barrier. Adjunctive strategies such as ulnar access and use of ultrasound may further increase the success rate of arterial access from the upper extremities.

Bilateral Distal Radial Artery Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Totally Occluded Left Anterior Descending Artery

Despite advances in new devices, equipment and expertise, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusions (CTO) remains difficult and technically challenging. Arterial access is an important consideration when deciding on how to treat the lesion at hand as this has implications on catheter sizing and support as well as facilitating contralateral coronary angiography. Radial artery access has been increasingly adopted by operators with similar success rates and safety to femoral artery access. Distal radial artery access is a relatively recent concept and provides more comfort for the patient as well as for the operator. We present here a challenging case of left anterior descending artery CTO in a 63-year-old male diabetic, in which the successful PCI was achieved via bilateral distal radial access.

TCT-791 Reasons for Not Using Radial Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Era of Experienced Radial Operator

TCT-791 Reasons for Not Using Radial Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Era of Experienced Radial Operator

TCT-795 Trends in the Prevalence and In-Hospital Outcomes of Radial Versus Femoral Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report With 158,363 Patients From the Brazilian Nationwide PCI Registry (CENIC)

The benefit of radial access (RA) compared with femoral access (FA) in reducing vascular complications, access-site, bleeding and adverse cardiac events is already well established, especially in the setting of acute coronary syndromes, and has become recommended access route in this context by

Revascularization strategies in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.

Coronary revascularization compared with medical treatment alone leads to improved survival in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiogenic shock. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the predominant mode of revascularization in clinical practice. This review discusses several aspects relevant to mechanical revascularization such as general indication, the roles of PCI and bypass surgery, percutaneous access site choice, strategy in multivessel disease and adjunctive antithrombotic therapy. The recently published CULPRIT-SHOCK trial provided the first randomized evidence that in the vast majority of patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock PCI should be confined to the culprit lesion, whereas nonculprit lesions should not be routinely treated in the emergency setting. Although randomized data are not available, a primary radial access for PCI is becoming more popular in the shock population. Cardiac surgery plays an indispensable, yet quantitatively only minor role in the management of infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Coronary revascularization remains the cornerstone in the early management of patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock. In patients with multivessel disease, a strategy of culprit lesion only PCI is the default approach.

Stroke After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Era of Transradial Intervention.

Periprocedural stroke is a rare but life-threatening complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Transradial intervention (TRI) is more beneficial than transfemoral intervention for periprocedural bleeding and acute kidney injuries, but its effect on periprocedural stroke has not been fully investigated. Our study aimed to assess risk predictors of periprocedural stroke according to PCI access site. Between 2008 and 2016, 17 966 patients undergoing PCI were registered in a prospective multicenter database. Periprocedural stroke was defined as loss of neurological function caused by an ischemic or hemorrhagic event with residual symptoms lasting at least 24 hours after onset. Periprocedural stroke was observed in 42 patients (0.3%). Stroke patients were older and had a higher incidence of chronic kidney disease, peripheral artery disease, and acute coronary syndrome but were less likely to undergo TRI. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed TRI (odds ratio; 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16-0.71; P=0.004) was significantly associated with a lower occurrence of periprocedural stroke. Finally, propensity score-matching analysis showed that TRI was associated with a reduced risk of periprocedural stroke compared with transfemoral intervention (0.1% versus 0.4%; P=0.014). According to our sensitivity analysis, this finding was robust to the presence of an unmeasured confounder in almost all plausible scenarios. TRI was associated with a reduced risk of periprocedural stroke compared with transfemoral intervention. Increased TRI use may reduce overall PCI complications and should be recommended as the optimal access site for both urgent/emergent and elective PCIs.

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PCI of ULMS is frequently performed through TFA because of technical complexity and safety concern. Studies have shown comparable efficacy and safety of TRA versus TFA, however, these studies are few in number. We intended to compare the clinical outcomes between transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (ULMS) by performing a meta-analysis. A systematic search of database, including, PubMed, Web of Science, Google scholar and Cochrane Database were performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were included comparing "TRA" versus "TFA" in patients undergoing PCI in ULMS. The primary outcome was a procedural success rate. Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, access site complications, in-hospital and long term: major adverse cardiac events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular mortality. Eight studies were included in the analysis. The procedural success rate was 97.3% and there was no statistically significant difference between TRA and TFA groups (OR, 1.41 [CI 0.64, 3.12], I2 = 26%). The rates of access site complications (OR, 0.17 [CI 0.07, 0.41], I2 = 16%), major bleeding (OR, 0.39 [CI 0.17, 0.86], I2 = 0%) and all-cause mortality (OR, 0.28 [CI 0.12, 0.64], I2 = 0%) were lower in the TRA group. There were no significant differences in in-hospital and long term cardiovascular mortality, MI and MACE between the two groups. In contrast to TFA, TRA is associated with reduced bleeding and access site complications, with similar procedural success rate in patients undergoing PCI of ULMS.

An Update on Radial Artery Access and Best Practices for Transradial Coronary Angiography and Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Transradial artery access for percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower bleeding and vascular complications than transfemoral artery access, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. A growing body of evidence supports adoption of transradial artery access to improve acute coronary syndrome-related outcomes, to improve healthcare quality, and to reduce cost. The purpose of this scientific statement is to propose and support a "radial-first" strategy in the United States for patients with acute coronary syndromes. This document also provides an update to previously published statements on transradial artery access technique and best practices, particularly as they relate to the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes.

TCT-773 Procedural Volume and Outcome With Radial or Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Radial and femoral arteries are usual routes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Radial access for PCI can reduce vascular bleeding compared with femoral access, and this result in lowering major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients with acute myocardial

Comparison of Radial Artery Occlusion Following Transradial Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Sheath-based versus Sheathless Technique

We compared the risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) in patients undergoing coronary intervention with introducer sheath (SG) or without introducer sheath (SLG). 1251 consecutive patients, from 2 tertiary care center in Pennsylvania, USA, undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) between 2008–2013 formed the study cohort (SLG: 161 patients, SG: 1090 patients). Radial artery patency was assessed using plethysmography. The association between sheath use and RAO was assessed using unadjusted, adjusted and propensity macthed logistic regression analyses. Mean age: 65 years, men: 63%, diabetics: 37%. SG was associated with lower RAO at band removal [unadjusted (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21–0.46), adjusted (OR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05–0.20) and propensity matched (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.13–0.32)], at 24 hours [unadjusted (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.12–0.34), adjusted (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.06–0.24) and propensity matched (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.07–0.25)] and 30 days [unadjusted (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14–0.54), adjusted (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.10–0.50) and propensity matched (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.10–0.40)], compared to SLG. Sheath use during radial access for PCI is associated with less RAO. It is unclear if use of introducer sheath during radial access for PCI reduces incidence of RAO. In this prospective cohort study involving 1251 concecutive patients undergoing PCI via radial access between 2008–2013, we assessed the difference in incidence of RAO between the SG (n = 1090) and the SLG (n = 161 patients) groups. SG group experienced lower incidence of RAO at band removal, 24 hours and 30 days post PCI in the unadjusted, adjusted, and propensity matched analyses compared to the SLG group. In conclusion sheath use during radial access for PCI is associated with less RAO.

Highlights From the Circulation Family of Journals.

Highlights From the Circulation Family of Journals.

Safety and efficacy of radial versus femoral access for rotational Atherectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Over the recent years, there has been increased interest in the use of transradial (TR) access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including rotational atherectomy (RA). However, a large proportion of operators seem to be reluctant to use TR access for complex PCI including rotational atherectomy for heavily calcified coronary lesions. We searched MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing radial versus femoral access in patients undergoing RA. Studies were included if they reported at least one of the following outcomes in each group separately: major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction (MI), hospital length of stay, radiation exposure, procedure time, procedure success and all-cause mortality. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and a p-value of <0.05 was considered as a level of significance. This meta-analysis included 5 retrospective studies with 3315 patients undergoing RA via radial access and 5838 patients via femoral access. Radial access was associated with lower major access site bleeding (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31-0.67, p < 0.001), and radiation exposure (MD: -16.1, 95%CI: -25.4--6.7 Gy cm2, p = 0.0007). There were no significant differences observed in all-cause in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69-1.23, p = 0.58); MACE (OR: 0.80, CI: 0.63, 1.02, p = 0.08), stent thrombosis (OR: 0.28, 95%CI: 0.06-1.33 p = 0.11); and MI (OR: 0.43, 95%CI: 0.15-1.24, p = 0.12). There were no significant differences in hospital stay, procedure time or procedure success between the two groups (p > 0.05). This meta-analysis of 9153 patients from observational studies demonstrates similar all-cause mortality, MACE, procedural success and procedural time during RA performed using TR access and TF access. However, TR access was associated with decreased access site bleeding and radiation exposure. Given the observational nature of these findings, a randomized controlled trial is warranted for further evidence.

In-hospital outcomes after switching from a bivalirudin-first strategy to an unfractionated heparin-first strategy for percutaneous coronary interventions.

The optimal anticoagulation strategy for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) remains debated. We report outcomes after switching from a bivalirudin-first to an unfractionated heparin (UFH)-first strategy for PCIs in a large academic center. Patients undergoing PCI from June 1st 2013-May 31st, 2015 were identified through the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), and divided into the "bivalirudin era" (June 2013-July 2014) and the "UFH era" (October 2014-May 2015). Bleeding outcomes were compared using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders. A total of 1,145 patients were identified (bivalirudin era =752, UFH era =393). Radial access for PCI increased over time, and was lower in the bivalirudin era (26% vs. 34%, P<0.05). There were 32 major bleeds (4.3%) in the bivalirudin era and 29 major bleeds (7.4%) in the UFH era (P=0.03), with the majority being hemoglobin drops (≥3 g/dL) without overt clinical bleeding (85.7% of bleeds in the bivalirudin era and 86.2% of bleeds in the UFH era). After adjustments for other common major causes of bleeding, bivalirudin was associated with 78% lower odds of bleeding (OR =0.22; 95% CI: 0.05-0.91). An increase in major bleeding events occurred after switching to an UFH-first strategy, primarily associated with hemoglobin drop (≥3 g/dL) without overt clinical bleeding. Major overt bleeding was rare (0.3%) and similar in both groups. These results suggest a UFH-first strategy for PCI may have a role in patients with low bleeding risk.

Transradial Artery Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

Early revascularization is the gold standard for management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The use of transradial artery access (TRA) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased in recent years and has emerged as a safe and effective approach to PCI in high-risk patients, with advantages in reduced major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and all-cause mortality when compared with transfemoral artery access (TFA). Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated these advantages of TRA vs. TFA PCI in STEMI patients. Although there remains a lack of dedicated randomized trials in CS, observational data suggest benefits on the same endpoints as in STEMI with TRA vs. TFA PCI in CS. This review summarizes the existing literature on the use of TRA compared to TFA for STEMI and CS patients; the reduction of major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and mortality associated with TRA in STEMI and CS; and technical considerations and challenges in the care of these high-risk patient populations.

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

BackgroundRecently, several meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that transradial access (TRA) reduces mortality compared to transfemoral access (TFA). However, a critical appraisal of these RCTs suggests that the findings could have resulted from a greater incidence of adverse events in the TFA groups rather than a beneficial effect of TRA. MethodsScientific databases and websites were searched for RCTs. Patients were divided into groups based on access type and whether the operator was a radial expert (RE) or non-radial expert (NRE). The groups were TFA-RE, TFA-NRE, TRA-RE, and TRA-NRE. Both a traditional meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis using mixed-treatment comparison models were performed. ResultsData from 13 trials including 15,615 patients were analyzed. The mortality rate for TFA-RE (3.54%) was more than double compared to TFA-NRE (1.61%). In pairwise meta-analysis, TFA-RE was associated with increased risk of mortality (RR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.13–2.62; p=0.011) compared to TFA-NRE. In subgroup analysis, TFA-RE was associated with increased mortality (RR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.24–2.34; p=0.001) compared to TRA, but TRA-NRE was not. Similarly, in mixed comparison models, TFA-RE was associated with increased mortality compared to TRA-NRE, TRA-RE, and TFA-NRE, but TFA-NRE was not, compared to TRA-RE and TRA-NRE. ConclusionRecently-reported survival differences between TRA and TFA may have been driven by adverse events in the TFA groups of the RCTs rather than a beneficial effect of TRA. This issue needs further investigation before labeling radial access a lifesaving procedure in invasively-managed patients with ACS.

Bivalirudin versus Heparin Monotherapy in Myocardial Infarction

BackgroundThe comparative efficacy of various anticoagulation strategies has not been clearly established in patients with acute myocardial infarction who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to current practice, which includes the use of radial-artery access for PCI and administration of potent P2Y12 inhibitors without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.MethodsIn this multicenter, randomized, registry-based, open-label clinical trial, we enrolled patients with either ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI (NSTEMI) who were undergoing PCI and receiving treatment with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The patients were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin or heparin during PCI, which was performed predominantly with the use of radial-artery access. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding during 180 days of follow-up.ResultsA total of 6006 patients (3005 with STEMI and 3001 with NSTEMI) were enrolled in the trial. At 180 days, a primary end-point event had occurred in 12.3% of the patients (369 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group and in 12.8% (383 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.10; P=0.54). The results were consistent between patients with STEMI and those with NSTEMI and across other major subgroups. Myocardial infarction occurred in 2.0% of the patients in the bivalirudin group and in 2.4% in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.19; P=0.33), major bleeding in 8.6% and 8.6%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.19; P=0.98), definite stent thrombosis in 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.10; P=0.09), and death in 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.41; P=0.76).ConclusionsAmong patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction, the rate of the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding was not lower among those who received bivalirudin than among those who received heparin monotherapy. (Funded by the Swedish Heart–Lung Foundation and others; VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu number, 2012-005260-10; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02311231.)