Access-Site Crossover in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Management.
acute coronary syndrome
crossover
femoral access
percutaneous coronary intervention
radial access
Journal
JACC. Cardiovascular interventions
ISSN: 1876-7605
Titre abrégé: JACC Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101467004
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 02 2021
22 02 2021
Historique:
received:
05
10
2020
revised:
23
11
2020
accepted:
24
11
2020
entrez:
19
2
2021
pubmed:
20
2
2021
medline:
19
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to assess the impact of access-site crossover in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management via radial or femoral access. There are limited data on the clinical implications of access-site crossover. In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox)-Access trial, 8,404 patients with acute coronary syndrome were randomized to radial or femoral access. Patients undergoing access-site crossover or successful access site were investigated. Thirty-day coprimary outcomes were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and a composite of MACE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding (net adverse clinical events [NACE]). Access-site crossover occurred in 183 of 4,197 patients (4.4%) in the radial group (mainly to femoral access) and 108 of 4,207 patients (2.6%) in the femoral group (mainly to radial access). In multivariate analysis, the risk for coprimary outcomes was not significantly higher with radial crossover compared with successful radial (MACE: adjusted rate ratio [adjRR]: 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 1.93; p = 0.32; NACE: adjRR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94 to 2.06; p = 0.094) or successful femoral access (MACE: adjRR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.81; p = 0.47; NACE: adjRR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.86; p = 0.24). Access site-related Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding was higher with radial crossover than successful radial access. Femoral crossover remained associated with higher risks for MACE (adjRR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.87; p = 0.007) and NACE (adjRR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.62; p = 0.019) compared with successful femoral access. Results remained consistent after excluding patients with randomized access not attempted. Crossover from radial to femoral access abolishes the bleeding benefit offered by the radial over femoral artery but does not appear to increase the risk for MACE or NACE compared with successful radial or femoral access. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to assess the impact of access-site crossover in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management via radial or femoral access.
BACKGROUND
There are limited data on the clinical implications of access-site crossover.
METHODS
In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox)-Access trial, 8,404 patients with acute coronary syndrome were randomized to radial or femoral access. Patients undergoing access-site crossover or successful access site were investigated. Thirty-day coprimary outcomes were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and a composite of MACE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding (net adverse clinical events [NACE]).
RESULTS
Access-site crossover occurred in 183 of 4,197 patients (4.4%) in the radial group (mainly to femoral access) and 108 of 4,207 patients (2.6%) in the femoral group (mainly to radial access). In multivariate analysis, the risk for coprimary outcomes was not significantly higher with radial crossover compared with successful radial (MACE: adjusted rate ratio [adjRR]: 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 1.93; p = 0.32; NACE: adjRR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94 to 2.06; p = 0.094) or successful femoral access (MACE: adjRR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.81; p = 0.47; NACE: adjRR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.86; p = 0.24). Access site-related Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding was higher with radial crossover than successful radial access. Femoral crossover remained associated with higher risks for MACE (adjRR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.87; p = 0.007) and NACE (adjRR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.62; p = 0.019) compared with successful femoral access. Results remained consistent after excluding patients with randomized access not attempted.
CONCLUSIONS
Crossover from radial to femoral access abolishes the bleeding benefit offered by the radial over femoral artery but does not appear to increase the risk for MACE or NACE compared with successful radial or femoral access. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33602431
pii: S1936-8798(20)32377-3
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.11.042
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01433627']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
361-373Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Funding support and Author Disclosures The MATRIX trial was sponsored by Società Italiana di Cardiologia Invasiva (a nonprofit organization), which received grant support from The Medicines Company and Terumo. This substudy did not receive any direct or indirect funding. Dr. Leonardi has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Chiesi; and has received personal fees from Bayer outside the submitted work. Dr. Vranckx has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Terumo, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Bayer Health Care outside the submitted work. Dr. Frigoli is affiliated with CTU Bern, University of Bern, which has a staff policy of not accepting honoraria or consultancy fees. However, CTU Bern is involved in the design, conduct, or analysis of clinical studies funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. In particular, pharmaceutical and medical device companies provide direct funding to some of these studies. For an up-to-date list of CTU Bern’s conflicts of interest, see http://www.ctu.unibe.ch/research/declaration_of_interest/index_eng.html. Dr. Windecker has received research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Querbet, Polares, Sanofi, Terumo, and Sinomed; serves as an unpaid member of the steering and/or executive groups of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Polares, Sinomed, V-Wave, and Xeltis (but has not received personal payments from any pharmaceutical company or device manufacturer); and is a member of the steering and/or executive committee groups of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding from industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants and personal fees from Abbott, Terumo, and AstraZeneca; has received personal fees from Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Amgen, Alvimedica, Biosensors, and Idorsia; and has received grants from Medicure outside the submitted work. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.