Impact of Access Site on Periprocedural Bleeding and Cerebral and Coronary Events in High-Bleeding-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Findings from the RIVA-PCI Trial.
Access site
Dual therapy
High-bleeding-risk
In-hospital bleeding
Percutaneous coronary intervention
RIVA PCI
Radial access
Journal
Cardiology and therapy
ISSN: 2193-8261
Titre abrégé: Cardiol Ther
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101634495
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Dec 2023
06 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
30
09
2023
accepted:
14
11
2023
medline:
6
12
2023
pubmed:
6
12
2023
entrez:
6
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The preference for using transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) in patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is based on evidence suggesting that TRA is associated with less bleeding and fewer vascular complications, shorter hospital stays, improved quality of life, and a potential beneficial effect on mortality. We have limited study data comparing the two access routes in a patient population with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PCI, who have a particular increased risk of bleeding, while AF itself is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism. Using data from the RIVA-PCI registry, which includes patients with AF undergoing PCI, we analyzed a high-bleeding-risk (HBR) cohort. These patients were predominantly on oral anticoagulants (OAC) for AF, and the PCI was performed via radial or femoral access. Endpoints examined were in-hospital bleeding (BARC 2-5), cerebral events (TIA, hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke) and coronary events (stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction). Out of 1636 patients, 854 (52.2%) underwent TFA, while 782 (47.8%) underwent the procedure via TRA, including nine patients with brachial artery puncture. The mean age was 75.5 years. Groups were similar in terms of age, sex distribution, AF type, cardiovascular history, risk factors, and comorbidities, except for a higher incidence of previous bypass surgeries, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 60 ml/min in the TFA group. No clinically relevant differences in antithrombotic therapy and combinations were present at the time of PCI. However, upon discharge, transradial PCI patients had a higher rate of triple therapy, while dual therapy was preferred after transfemoral procedures. Radial access was more frequently chosen for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina pectoris (UAP) cases (NSTEMI 26.6% vs. 17.0%, p < 0.0001; UAP 21.5% vs. 14.5%, p < 0.001), while femoral access was more common for elective PCI (60.3% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.0001). No differences were observed for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Both groups had similar rates of cerebral events (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p = 0.93), but the TFA group had a higher incidence of bleeding (BARC 2-5) (4.2% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.01), mainly driven by BARC 3 bleeding (1.5% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were found for stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p = 0.93; TFA 0.4% vs. TRA 0.1%, p = 0.36). In HBR patients with AF undergoing PCI for acute or chronic coronary syndrome, the use of TRA might be associated with a decrease in in-hospital bleeding, while not increasing the risk of embolic or ischemic events compared to femoral access. Further studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38055177
doi: 10.1007/s40119-023-00343-4
pii: 10.1007/s40119-023-00343-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Lopes RD, et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(16):1509–24.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817083
pubmed: 30883055
Ibanez B, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the task force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2018;39(2):119–77.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393
pubmed: 28886621
Collet JP, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(14):1289–367.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575
pubmed: 32860058
Lawton JS, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(3):e18–114.
pubmed: 34882435
Gargiulo G, et al. Effects on mortality and major bleeding of radial versus femoral artery access for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: meta-analysis of individual patient data from 7 multicenter randomized clinical trials. Circulation. 2022;146(18):1329–43.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061527
pubmed: 36036610
Chiarito M, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97(7):1387–96.
doi: 10.1002/ccd.29486
pubmed: 33507598
Patil S, et al. Prevalence and determinants of atrial fibrillation-associated in-hospital ischemic stroke in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2021;144:1–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.12.066
pubmed: 33385356
Le May M, et al. Safety and efficacy of femoral access vs radial access in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the SAFARI-STEMI randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5(2):126–34.
doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4852
pubmed: 31895439
pmcid: 6990931
Zeymer U, et al. Current status of antithrombotic therapy and in-hospital outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Germany. Herz. 2023;48(2):134–40.
doi: 10.1007/s00059-022-05099-6
pubmed: 35243515
Ferrante G, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions across the entire spectrum of patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(14):1419–34.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.04.014
pubmed: 27372195
Nguyen P, et al. Standard versus ultrasound-guided radial and femoral access in coronary angiography and intervention (SURF): a randomised controlled trial. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(6):e522–30.
doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00336
pubmed: 31113763
Sandoval Y, et al. Contemporary arterial access in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(22):2233–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.08.058
pubmed: 29169493
Valgimigli M, et al. Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10150):835–48.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31714-8
pubmed: 30153988
Jolly SS, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9775):1409–20.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60404-2
pubmed: 21470671
Leonardi S, et al. Prognostic implications of declining hemoglobin content in patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(4):375–88.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.046
pubmed: 33509394
Wimmer NJ, et al. Risk-treatment paradox in the selection of transradial access for percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(3): e000174.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000174
pubmed: 23709565
pmcid: 3698780