Influence of Bleeding Risk on Outcomes of Radial and Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis From the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial.
Journal
The Canadian journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1916-7075
Titre abrégé: Can J Cardiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8510280
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
06
11
2019
revised:
27
01
2020
accepted:
27
01
2020
pubmed:
26
5
2020
medline:
16
6
2021
entrez:
26
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Radial 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. Patients 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. In 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; P Our 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Radial 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.
METHODS
Patients 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.
RESULTS
In 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; P
CONCLUSIONS
Our 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32450057
pii: S0828-282X(20)30178-1
doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2020.01.029
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
122-130Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.