Faculty Bibliography

Since its advent over two decades ago, transradial access for cardiac catheterization and percutaneous intervention has evolved into a versatile and evidence-based approach for containing the risks of access-site bleeding and vascular complications without compromising the technical range or success associated with contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Early studies demonstrated reduced rates of vascular complications and access-site bleeding with radial-access catheterization but at the cost of increased access-site crossover and reduced procedural success. Contemporary data demonstrate that while the rates of major bleeding with femoral-access PCI in standard-risk cohorts have declined significantly over time, the transradial approach still retains significant advantages by way of reductions in vascular complications, length of stay, and enhanced patient comfort and patient preference over the femoral approach, while maintaining procedural success. Major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding are lowest with the transradial approach when procedures are performed at high-volume radial centers, by experienced radial operators, or in the context of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Choice of procedural anticoagulation appears to differentially impact access-site bleeding in transradial versus transfemoral PCI; however, non-access site bleeding remains a significant contributor to major bleeding in both groups. Despite abundant supporting data, adoption of transradial technique as the default strategy in cardiac catheterization in the United States has lagged behind many other countries. However, recent trends suggest that interest and adoption of the technique in the United States is growing at a brisker pace than previously observed.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to examine temporal trends in post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) bleeding among patients with elective PCI, unstable angina (UA)/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND:The impact of bleeding avoidance strategies on post-PCI bleeding rates over time is unknown. METHODS:Using the CathPCI Registry, we examined temporal trends in post-PCI bleeding from 2005 to 2009 among patients with elective PCI (n = 599,524), UA/NSTEMI (n = 836,103), and STEMI (n = 267,632). We quantified the linear time trend in bleeding using 3 sequential logistic regression models: 1) clinical factors; 2) clinical + vascular access strategies (femoral vs. radial, use of closure devices); and 3) clinical, vascular strategies + antithrombotic treatments (anticoagulant ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor [GPI]). Changes in the odds ratio for time trend in bleeding were compared using bootstrapping and converted to risk ratio. RESULTS:An approximate 20% reduction in post-PCI bleeding was seen (elective PCI: 1.4% to 1.1%; UA/NSTEMI: 2.3% to 1.8; STEMI: 4.9% to 4.5%). Radial approach remained low (<3%), and closure device use increased marginally from 44% to 49%. Bivalirudin use increased (17% to 30%), whereas any heparin + GPI decreased (41% to 28%). There was a significant 6% to 8% per year reduction in annual bleeding risk in UA/NSTEMI and elective PCI, but not in STEMI. Antithrombotic strategies were associated with roughly half of the reduction in annual bleeding risk: change in risk ratio from 7.5% to 4% for elective PCI, and 5.7% to 2.8% for UA/NSTEMI (both p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS:The nearly 20% reduction in post-PCI bleeding over time was largely due to temporal changes in antithrombotic strategies. Further reductions in bleeding complications may be possible as bleeding avoidance strategies evolve, especially in STEMI.

BACKGROUND:Conflicting evidence exists on sex-based outcomes after coronary stenting. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:Data on 426 996 patients ≥65 years old (42.3% women) from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry (2004-2008) were linked to Medicare inpatient claims to compare in-hospital outcomes by sex and long-term outcomes by sex and stent type. In-hospital complications were more frequent in women than in men: death (3869 [2.2%] versus 3737 [1.6%]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-1.49), myocardial infarction (2365 [1.3%] versus 2858 [1.2%]; odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.27), bleeding (7860 [4.4%] versus 5627 [2.3%]; odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.79-1.93), and vascular complications (2381 [1.3%] versus 1648 [0.7%]; odds ratio, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.73-1.99). At 20.4 months, women had a lower adjusted risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90-0.94) but similar rates of myocardial infarction, revascularization, and bleeding. Relative to bare metal stent use, drug-eluting stent use was associated with similar improved long-term outcomes in both sexes: death (women: adjusted HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.76-0.81; men: HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.79), myocardial infarction (women: HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.84; men: HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85), and revascularization (women: HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97; men: HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.94). There was no interaction between sex and stent type for long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:In contemporary coronary stenting, women have a slightly higher procedural risk than men but have better long-term survival. In both sexes, use of a drug-eluting stent is associated with lower long-term likelihood for death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization.

Antiplatelet therapy serves an important role in the management of acute coronary syndromes and in reducing the risk of thrombotic complications from atrial fibrillation. There has been rapid development of newer and more potent antiplatelet therapies over the last several years that have further reduced ischemic complications, but with a trade-off of increased bleeding risk. Bleeding complications associated with antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies are associated with significantly increased risk of adverse outcomes, including death. Understanding the risk of bleeding associated with antiplatelet agents is critical to developing strategies to mitigate this risk.

With femoral access, bivalirudin decreases risks of major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and provides better net clinical benefit compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Whether this benefit exists compared to UFH monotherapy is less clear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes in patients undergoing transfemoral PCI with UFH or bivalirudin. Randomized trials (n = 3) and observational studies (n = 13) comparing bivalirudin to UFH monotherapy were reviewed. Primary outcomes were 30-day rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) including death, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent revascularization, as well as all-cause mortality, MI, major bleeding, and blood transfusion. We collected data from 16 studies involving 32,492 patients undergoing PCI. Most observational studies were performed in the United States, whereas all randomized trials were done in Europe. Compared to UFH monotherapy, bivalirudin was associated with similar risk of MACEs (odds ratios [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 1.12), a substantial 45% relative decrease in major bleeding (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.72), and a trend in the decrease of transfusion (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.08). A decrease in mortality was seen in observational studies (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85) but remained inconclusive in randomized trials (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.01). MI rate was similar with the 2 anticoagulants. In conclusion, in patients undergoing transfemoral PCI, the benefit of bivalirudin over UFH monotherapy is driven by a significant decrease in major bleeding with similar rates of MACE. As PCI practice moves toward other bleeding-avoidance strategies such as the radial approach, future studies should focus on the interaction between anticoagulant strategy and access-site choice.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to determine the consistency of the effects of radial artery access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and in those with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). BACKGROUND:The safety associated with radial access may translate into mortality benefit in higher-risk patients, such as those with STEMI. METHODS:We compared efficacy and bleeding outcomes in patients randomized to radial versus femoral access in RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention trial) (N = 7,021) separately in those with STEMI (n = 1,958) and NSTEACS (n = 5,063). Interaction tests between access site and acute coronary syndrome type were performed. RESULTS:Baseline characteristics were well matched between radial and femoral groups. There were significant interactions for the primary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke/non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding (p = 0.025), the secondary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke (p = 0.011) and mortality (p = 0.001). In STEMI patients, radial access reduced the primary outcome compared with femoral access (3.1% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60; p = 0.026). For NSTEACS, the rates were 3.8% and 3.5%, respectively (p = 0.49). In STEMI patients, death/myocardial infarction/stroke were also reduced with radial access (2.7% vs. 4.6%; HR 0.59; p = 0.031), as was all-cause mortality (1.3% vs. 3.2%; HR: 0.39; p = 0.006), with no difference in NSTEACS patients. Operator radial experience was greater in STEMI versus NSTEACS patients (400 vs. 326 cases/year, p < 0.0001). In primary PCI, mortality was reduced with radial access (1.4% vs. 3.1%; HR: 0.46; p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with STEMI, radial artery access reduced the primary outcome and mortality. No such benefit was observed in patients with NSTEACS. The radial approach may be preferred in STEMI patients when the operator has considerable radial experience. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273).