Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The benefit of transradial access (TRA) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) is uncertain. We sought to determine the benefits of TRA in patients with CS undergoing coronary angiography/intervention. METHODS:MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, and electronic databases were searched for studies that assessed the following: (1) patients with CS who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and (2) the association between choice of arterial access, 30-day all-cause mortality, and 30-day major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs) using random-effects model. RESULTS:From 3,652 retrieved citations, 8 studies involving 8,131 patients with CS undergoing PCI (via TRA: 2,321 patients, via TFA: 5,810 patients) were included. Transradial access was associated with significantly reduced risk for all-cause mortality (unadjusted: risk ratio [RR] 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.71, P < .001, I(2) = 29%, 8 included studies; adjusted: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.65, P < .001, I(2) = 0%, 6 included studies) and MACCE (unadjusted: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.63-0.73, P < .001, I(2) = 0%, 6 included studies; adjusted: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.75, P < .001, I(2) = 0%, 4 included studies) at 30 days when compared with TFA. CONCLUSIONS:Transradial access is associated with reduced mortality and MACCE at 30 days in patients with CS undergoing PCI. Considering the possible influence of selection bias on the effect estimate in our analysis, randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess this association.

The prevention of major bleeding during percutaneous coronary intervention is one of the most widely discussed and often controversial topics within interventional cardiology. The choice of arterial access should be considered a mechanism for bleeding avoidance, and various strategies have been proposed to prevent or lower major bleeding and vascular complications with varying levels of strength. Herein, we review the current literature on arterial access as a bleeding avoidance strategy during percutaneous coronary intervention and its impact on outcome and provide a consensus opinion based on the strength of the evidence supporting various techniques.

BACKGROUND:It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS:We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS/RESULTS:We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Randomized clinical trials provide the foundation of clinical evidence to guide physicians in their selection of treatment options. Importantly, randomization is the only reliable method to control for confounding factors when comparing treatment groups. However, randomized trials have limitations, including the increasingly prohibitive costs of conducting adequately powered studies. Local and national regulatory requirements, delays in approval, and unnecessary trial processes have led to increased costs and decreased efficiency. Another limitation is that clinical trials involve selected patients who are treated according to protocols that might not represent real-world practice. A possible solution is registry-based randomized clinical trials. By including a randomization module in a large inclusive clinical registry with unselected consecutive enrolment, the advantages of a prospective randomized trial can be combined with the strengths of a large-scale all-comers clinical registry. We believe that prospective registry-based randomized clinical trials are a powerful tool for conducting studies efficiently and cost-effectively.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access in women undergoing coronary angiography/intervention. BACKGROUND:The risk of bleeding and vascular access site complications are higher in women than in men. METHODS:In a pre-specified RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention) subgroup analysis, we compared outcomes in women (n=1,861) and men (n=5,160) randomized to radial versus femoral access. RESULTS:Overall, women were at higher risk of major vascular complications compared with men (4.7% vs. 1.7%; p<0.0001). Major vascular complications were significantly reduced with radial access in women (3.1% vs. 6.1%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.78; p=0.002) and in men (0.7% vs. 2.8%; HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.45; p<0.0001; interaction p=0.092). Crossover rates were higher with radial compared with femoral access in women (11.1% vs. 1.9%; HR: 5.88; p<0.0001) and men (6.3% vs. 1.9%; HR: 3.32; p<0.0001; interaction p=0.054). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) success rates were similar irrespective of access site (women: HR: 1.05; p=0.471; men: HR: 1.00; p=0.888; interaction p=0.674), with no differences in PCI complications. In multivariable analyses, female sex was an independent predictor of major vascular complications (HR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.76 to 3.25; p<0.0001). There were consistent findings for women and men, with no difference for the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and non-coronary artery bypass grafting bleeding (women: 3.9% vs. 5.0%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.19; men: 3.54% vs. 3.5%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.75 to -1.34; interaction p=0.325). CONCLUSIONS:Women undergoing coronary angiography and PCI have a higher risk of vascular access site complications compared with men, and radial access is an effective method to reduce these complications.