P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy or Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

BackgroundIt remains unclear whether P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy preserves ischemic protection while limiting bleeding risk compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).ObjectivesWe sought to assess the effects of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT vs standard DAPT in relation to PCI complexity.MethodsWe pooled patient-level data from randomized controlled trials comparing P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy and standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated outcomes after coronary revascularization. Complex PCI was defined as any of 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or chronic total occlusion. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding.ResultsOf 22,941 patients undergoing PCI from 5 trials, 4,685 (20.4%) with complex PCI had higher rates of ischemic events. The primary efficacy endpoint was similar between P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy and DAPT among patients with complex PCI (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.19) and noncomplex PCI (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.76-1.09; P_interaction = 0.770). The treatment effect was consistent across all the components of the complex PCI definition. Compared with DAPT, P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy consistently reduced BARC 3 or 5 bleeding in complex PCI (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.84) and noncomplex PCI patients (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.37-0.64; P_interaction = 0.920).ConclusionsP2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of fatal and ischemic events and lower risk of major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, irrespective of PCI complexity. (PROSPERO [P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Revascularization: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials]; CRD42020176853)     

Radial versus femoral access in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A propensity-matched analysis from real-world data of the K-ACTIVE registry

BackgroundThe access site for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recently shifted from femoral to radial. However, few real-world data on Japanese patients exist.MethodsTo elucidate the clinical selection and impact of the access site in STEMI patients, we analyzed a Japanese observational prospective multicenter registry of acute myocardial infarction (K-ACTIVE: Kanagawa ACuTe cardIoVascular rEgistry) in 2015 to 2021. Data were analyzed in the entire population and a propensity score-matched population adjusted for confounding factors. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 was used to assess bleeding events. MACE plus BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding were considered composite events. Clinical outcomes were followed for 30 days.ResultsThe 6802 STEMI patients included 4786 patients with radial access (70.3 %) and 2016 with femoral access (29.7 %). Femoral access tended to be selected for more severe conditions than radial access. The median door-to-device time in the radial access group was significantly shorter than the femoral access group in the entire population (75 min versus 79 min, p < 0.01). After propensity score matching (each group, n = 1208), the incidence of MACE tended to be lower in the radial access group [risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.63–1.09, p = 0.17]. The incidence of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding was significantly less in the radial access group (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.23–0.97, p = 0.04). The incidence of composite events was significantly less in the radial access group (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.57–0.96, p = 0.02).ConclusionIn STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, in comparison to femoral access, radial access reduced composite events in the entire population and the matched population, through a reduction in MACE and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding.     

Radial vs Femoral Access in ACS Patients Undergoing Complex PCI Is Associated With Consistent Bleeding Benefit and No Excess of Risks

BackgroundThe comparative effectiveness of transradial (TRA) compared with transfemoral (TFA) access in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear.MethodsAmong 8404 ACS patients in the Minimising Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX (MATRIX)—Access trial, 5233 underwent noncomplex (TRA: n = 2590; TFA: n = 2643) and 1491 complex (TRA: n = 777; TFA: n = 714) PCI. Co-primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and the composite of MACE and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding (net adverse cardiovascular events [NACE]) at 30 days.ResultsRates of 30-day MACE (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72-1.22) or NACE (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.14) did not significantly differ between groups in the complex PCI group, whereas both primary end points were lower (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.98; respectively) with TRA among noncomplex PCI patients, with negative interaction testing (P_int = 0.473 and 0.666, respectively). Access-site BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding was lower with TRA, consistently among complex (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.63) and noncomplex (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.85) PCI patients, whereas the former group had a greater absolute risk reduction of 1.7% (number needed to treat: 59) owing to their higher absolute risk.ConclusionsAmong ACS patients, PCI complexity did not affect the comparative efficacy and safety of TRA vs TFA, whereas the absolute risk reduction of access-site major bleeding was greater with TRA compared with TFA in complex as opposed to noncomplex PCI.     

Ticagrelor Monotherapy After PCI in High-Risk Patients With Prior MI: A Prespecified TWILIGHT Substudy

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate if patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) could benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy in terms of bleeding reduction without any compromise in ischemic event prevention.BackgroundPatients with history of MI who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain at risk for recurrent ischemic events. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for this cohort remains debated.MethodsIn this prespecified analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, the authors evaluated the impact of history of MI on treatment effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent with at least 1 clinical and 1 angiographic high-risk feature and free from adverse events at 3 months after index PCI. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, and the key secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, MI, or stroke, both at 12 months after randomization.ResultsA total of 1,937 patients (29.7%) with and 4,595 patients (70.3%) without prior MI were randomized to ticagrelor and placebo or ticagrelor and aspirin. At 1 year after randomization, patients with prior MI experienced higher rates of death, MI, or stroke (5.7% vs 3.2%; P < 0.001) but similar BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding (5.0% vs 5.5%; P = 0.677) compared with patients without prior MI. Ticagrelor monotherapy consistently reduced the risk for the primary bleeding outcome in patients with (3.4% vs 6.7%; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.33-0.76) and without (4.2% vs 7.0%; HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.76; P_interaction = 0.54) prior MI. Rates of the key secondary ischemic outcome were not significantly different between treatment groups irrespective of history of MI (prior MI, 6.0% vs 5.5% [HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.75-1.58]; no prior MI, 3.1% vs 3.3% [HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.67-1.28]; P_interaction = 0.52).ConclusionsTicagrelor monotherapy is associated with significantly lower risk for bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, without any compromise in ischemic prevention, among high-risk patients with history of MI undergoing PCI. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242)     

Association of Pulse Pressure With Clinical Outcomes in Patients Under Different Antiplatelet Strategies After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Analysis of GLOBAL LEADERS

BackgroundWe evaluated the association of pulse pressure (PP) and different antiplatelet regimes with clinical and safety outcomes in an all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) population.MethodsIn this analysis of GLOBAL LEADERS (n = 15,936) we compared the experimental therapy of 23 months of ticagrelor after 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) vs standard DAPT for 12 months followed by aspirin monotherapy in subjects who underwent PCI and were divided into 2 groups according to the median PP (60 mm Hg). The primary end point (all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction) and the composite end points: patient-oriented composite end points (POCE), Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5, and net adverse clinical events (NACE) were evaluated.ResultsAt 2 years, subjects in the high-PP group (n = 7971) had similar rates of the primary end point (4.3% vs 3.9%; P = 0.058), POCE (14.9% vs 12.7%; P = 0.051), and BARC 3 or 5 (2.5% vs 1.7%; P = 0.355) and higher rates of NACE (16.4% vs 13.7%; P = 0.037) compared with the low-PP group (n = 7965). Among patients with PP < 60 mm Hg, the primary end point (3.4% vs 4.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.96), POCE (11.8% vs 13.5%, aHR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76-0.98), NACE (12.8% vs 14.7%, aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.96), and BARC 3 or 5 (1.4% vs 2.1%, aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy compared with DAPT. The only significant interaction was for BARC 3 or 5 (P = 0.008).ConclusionsAfter contemporary PCI, subjects with high PP levels experienced high rates of NACE at 2 years. In those with low PP, ticagrelor monotherapy led to a lower risk of bleeding events compared with standard DAPT.     

Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography/Intervention in Women With Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the RIVAL Trial (Radial Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention)

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access in women undergoing coronary angiography/intervention.BackgroundThe risk of bleeding and vascular access site complications are higher in women than in men.MethodsIn 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.ResultsOverall, 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).ConclusionsWomen 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.     

Clopidogrel Monotherapy After 1-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Diabetes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BackgroundDiabetes was reported to be associated with an impaired response to clopidogrel.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel monotherapy after very short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsA subgroup analysis was conducted on the basis of diabetes in the STOPDAPT-2 (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent–2) Total Cohort (N = 5,997) (STOPDAPT-2, n = 3,009; STOPDAPT-2 ACS [Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent–2 for the Patients With ACS], n = 2,988), which randomly compared 1-month DAPT followed by clopidogrel monotherapy with 12-month DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel after cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or stroke) or bleeding (TIMI [Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction] major or minor) endpoints at 1 year.ResultsThere were 2,030 patients with diabetes (33.8%) and 3967 patients without diabetes (66.2%). Regardless of diabetes, the risk of 1-month DAPT relative to 12-month DAPT was not significant for the primary endpoint (diabetes, 3.58% vs 4.12% [HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.56-1.37; P = 0.55]; nondiabetes, 2.46% vs 2.49% [HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.67-1.48; P = 0.97]; P_interaction = 0.67) and for the cardiovascular endpoint (diabetes, 3.28% vs 3.05% [HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.67-1.81; P = 0.70]; nondiabetes, 1.95% vs 1.43% [HR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.85-2.25; P = 0.20]; P_interaction = 0.52), while it was lower for the bleeding endpoint (diabetes, 0.30% vs 1.50% [HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06-0.68; P = 0.01]; nondiabetes, 0.61% vs 1.21% [HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.25-1.01; P = 0.054]; P_interaction = 0.19).ConclusionsClopidogrel monotherapy after 1-month DAPT compared with 12-month DAPT reduced major bleeding events without an increase in cardiovascular events regardless of diabetes, although the findings should be considered as hypothesis generating, especially in patients with acute coronary syndrome, because of the inconclusive result in the STOPDAPT-2 ACS trial. (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent–2 [STOPDAPT-2], NCT02619760; Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent–2 for the Patients With ACS [STOPDAPT-2 ACS], NCT03462498)     

Vascular Access in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease Undergoing TAVR: The Hostile Registry

BackgroundThe optimal access route in patients with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains undetermined.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare clinical outcomes with transfemoral access (TFA), transthoracic access (TTA), and nonthoracic transalternative access (TAA) in TAVR patients with severe PAD.MethodsPatients with PAD and hostile femoral access (TFA impossible, or possible only after percutaneous treatment) undergoing TAVR at 28 international centers were included in this registry. The primary endpoint was the propensity-adjusted risk of 30-day major adverse events (MAE) defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), or main access site–related Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 major vascular complications. Outcomes were also stratified according to the severity of PAD using a novel risk score (Hostile score).ResultsAmong the 1,707 patients included in the registry, 518 (30.3%) underwent TAVR with TFA after percutaneous treatment, 642 (37.6%) with TTA, and 547 (32.0%) with TAA (mostly transaxillary). Compared with TTA, both TFA (adjusted HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.75) and TAA (adjusted HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.47-0.78) were associated with lower 30-day rates of MAE, driven by fewer access site–related complications. Composite risks at 1 year were also lower with TFA and TAA compared with TTA. TFA compared with TAA was associated with lower 1-year risk of stroke/TIA (adjusted HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.24-0.98), a finding confined to patients with low Hostile scores (P_interaction = 0.049).ConclusionsAmong patients with PAD undergoing TAVR, both TFA and TAA were associated with lower 30-day and 1-year rates of MAE compared with TTA, but 1-year stroke/TIA rates were higher with TAA compared with TFA.     

Access Route and Clinical Outcomes After Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Treatment Strategy

BackgroundWhether the access site influences the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment strategy remains unstudied.MethodsThis post-hoc analysis included ACS patients undergoing invasive treatment via radial or femoral access and randomized to either ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, safety endpoint was BARC 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed out to 12 months after randomization.ResultsOut of 4018 patients, 3984 underwent invasive treatment via radial or femoral access. 1479 had coronary angiography via radial access (ticagrelor, N = 748; prasugrel, N = 731) and 2505 via femoral access (ticagrelor, N = 1245; prasugrel, N = 1260). There was no interaction between access route and assignment to either ticagrelor or prasugrel regarding the primary efficacy or safety endpoints (P for interaction≥0.616). In the radial group, the primary efficacy endpoint (7.6% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.32 [0.88–1.97], P = 0.151) and the safety endpoint (4.3% versus 3.0%, HR: 1.36, [0.73–1.31], P = 0.300) were not statistically different in patients receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel. In the femoral group, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (10.3% versus 7.3%, HR: 1.44 [1.10–1.88], P = 0.006) without significant difference in terms of safety endpoint (6.4% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.14, [0.81–1.60], P = 0.470).ConclusionsIn patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, the access route does not influence the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800     

Access-Site Crossover in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Management

ObjectivesThe 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.BackgroundThere are limited data on the clinical implications of access-site crossover.MethodsIn 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]).ResultsAccess-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.ConclusionsCrossover 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)     

Everolimus Eluting Stents in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease: Insights from the TUXEDO Trial

BackgroundPatients with diabetes and those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. Everolimus eluting stents (EES) have been shown to be superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (PES) in patients with diabetes. However, it is not known if EES is as beneficial in diabetic patients with CKD compared with those without CKD.Methods and resultsPatients enrolled in the TUXEDO-India trial, which is a clinical trial of patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) randomly assigned to EES vs. thin-strut PES (Taxus Element), with data on baseline renal function were selected. CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min/1.73 m² using the Cockcroft–Gault formula. Primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF-defined as cardiac death, TV myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemia driven TV revascularization) at 1 year. Various secondary outcomes including stent thrombosis were evaluated.Among the 1821 patients with diabetes included in this analysis, 344 (19%) had CKD. In a propensity score adjusted analysis, patients with CKD had a significant increase in MACE (HR = 2.02; 95% CI 1.17–3.50; P = 0.01); death/MI/TVR (HR = 1.99; 95% CI 1.18–3.34; P = 0.009); death/MI (HR = 2.31; 95% CI 1.30–4.08; P = 0.004); cardiac death/MI (HR = 2.40; 95% CI 1.31–4.42; P = 0.005); death (HR = 2.88; 95% CI 1.35–6.13; P = 0.006) driven by an increase in cardiac death (HR = 3.33; 95% CI 1.42–7.83; P = 0.006) when compared with those without CKD. However, stent related events (TV-MI, TVR, TLR and stent thrombosis) were not different between CKD and non CKD groups. A significant interaction between CKD status and stent type (EES vs. PES) was noted for the outcomes of TVF (P_interaction = 0.046), MACE (P_interaction = 0.02), cardiac death or MI (P_interaction = 0.05), non-target vessel related MI (P_interaction = 0.04), non-Q-wave MI (P_interaction = 0.03) and deaths/MI/TVR (P_interaction = 0.04) such that EES was superior to PES in the non-CKD cohort but not in the CKD cohort.ConclusionsIn subjects with diabetes, CKD is an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes including increased risk of death driven largely by non-stent related events. While EES was superior to PES in patients without CKD, this was not the case in those with CKD (Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2011/06/001830).     

Distal vs Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Angiography and/or Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BackgroundEmerging evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing distal radial access (DRA) with conventional radial access (RA) is available.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to provide a quantitative appraisal of the effects of DRA) vs conventional RA for coronary angiography with or without intervention.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for RCT comparing DRA vs conventional RA for coronary angiography and/or intervention. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The primary endpoint was radial artery occlusion (RAO) at the longest available follow-up.ResultsFourteen studies enrolling 6,208 participants were included. Compared with conventional RA, DRA was associated with a significant lower risk of RAO, either detected at latest follow-up (risk ratio [RR]: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.23-0.56; P < 0.001; number needed to treat [NNT] = 30) or in-hospital (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.19-0.53; P < 0.001; NNT = 28), as well as EASY (Early Discharge After Transradial Stenting of Coronary Arteries) ≥II hematoma (RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.27-0.96; P = 0.04; NNT = 107). By contrast, DRA was associated with a higher risk of access site crossover (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 1.88-5.06; P < 0.001; NNT = 12), a longer time for radial puncture (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 3.56; 95% CI: 0.96-6.16; P < 0.001), a longer time for sheath insertion (SMD: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.58; P < 0.001), and a higher number of puncture attempts (SMD: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48-0.69; P < 0.001).ConclusionsCompared with conventional RA, DRA is associated with lower risks of RAO and EASY ≥II hematoma but requires longer time for radial artery cannulation and sheath insertion, more puncture attempts, and a higher access site crossover.     

A Registry-Based Randomized Trial Comparing Radial and Femoral Approaches in Women Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The SAFE-PCI for Women (Study of Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women) Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the effect of radial access on outcomes in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using a registry-based randomized trial.BackgroundWomen are at increased risk of bleeding and vascular complications after PCI. The role of radial access in women is unclear.MethodsWomen undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI were randomized to radial or femoral arterial access. Data from the CathPCI Registry and trial-specific data were merged into a final study database. The primary efficacy endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding or vascular complications requiring intervention. The primary feasibility endpoint was access site crossover. The primary analysis cohort was the subgroup undergoing PCI; sensitivity analyses were conducted in the total randomized population.ResultsThe trial was stopped early for a lower than expected event rate. A total of 1,787 women (691 undergoing PCI) were randomized at 60 sites. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint between radial or femoral access among women undergoing PCI (radial 1.2% vs. 2.9% femoral, odds ratio [OR]: 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12 to 1.27); among women undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI, radial access significantly reduced bleeding and vascular complications (0.6% vs. 1.7%; OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90). Access site crossover was significantly higher among women assigned to radial access (PCI cohort: 6.1% vs. 1.7%; OR: 3.65; 95% CI: 1.45 to 9.17); total randomized cohort: (6.7% vs. 1.9%; OR: 3.70; 95% CI: 2.14 to 6.40). More women preferred radial access.ConclusionsIn this pragmatic trial, which was terminated early, the radial approach did not significantly reduce bleeding or vascular complications in women undergoing PCI. Access site crossover occurred more often in women assigned to radial access. (SAFE-PCI for Women; NCT01406236)     

Distal Versus Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: The DISCO RADIAL Trial

BackgroundCurrently, transradial access (TRA) is the recommended access for coronary procedures because of increased safety, with radial artery occlusion (RAO) being its most frequent complication, which will increasingly affect patients undergoing multiple procedures during their lifetimes. Recently, distal radial access (DRA) has emerged as a promising alternative access to minimize RAO risk. A large-scale, international, randomized trial comparing RAO with TRA and DRA is lacking.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the superiority of DRA compared with conventional TRA with respect to forearm RAO.MethodsDISCO RADIAL (Distal vs Conventional Radial Access) was an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in which patients with indications for percutaneous coronary procedure using a 6-F Slender sheath were randomized to DRA or TRA with systematic implementation of best practices to reduce RAO. The primary endpoint was the incidence of forearm RAO assessed by vascular ultrasound at discharge. Secondary endpoints include crossover, hemostasis time, and access site–related complications.ResultsOverall, 657 patients underwent TRA, and 650 patients underwent DRA. Forearm RAO did not differ between groups (0.91% vs 0.31%; P = 0.29). Patent hemostasis was achieved in 94.4% of TRA patients. Crossover rates were higher with DRA (3.5% vs 7.4%; P = 0.002), and median hemostasis time was shorter (180 vs 153 minutes; P < 0.001). Radial artery spasm occurred more with DRA (2.7% vs 5.4%; P = 0.015). Overall bleeding events and vascular complications did not differ between groups.ConclusionsWith the implementation of a rigorous hemostasis protocol, DRA and TRA have equally low RAO rates. DRA is associated with a higher crossover rate but a shorter hemostasis time.     

Randomized Clinical Trial on Prevention of Radial Occlusion After Transradial Access Using Nitroglycerin: PATENS Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether administration of nitroglycerin at the beginning or end of a transradial approach (TRA) procedure would preserve radial patency.BackgroundThe TRA is becoming the preferred vascular access route in coronary interventions. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the most frequent complication. Routine vasodilator treatment aims to reduce spasm and possibly prevent RAO.MethodsThe authors designed a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 2-by-2 factorial, placebo-controlled trial encompassing patients undergoing the TRA. Patients were randomized to either 500 μg nitroglycerin or placebo; each arm was also subrandomized to early (upon sheath insertion) or late (right before sheath removal) nitroglycerin administration to evaluate the superiority of nitroglycerin in the prevention of RAO with 24 hours on Doppler ultrasound.ResultsA total of 2,040 patients were enrolled. RAO occurred in 49 patients (2.4%). Fifteen of these patients (30.6%) showed re-establishment of flow at 30 days. Nitroglycerin, compared with placebo, did not reduce the risk for RAO at either of the 2 time points (early, 2.5% vs 2.3% [P = 0.66]; late, 2.3% vs 2.5% [P = 0.66]). By multivariable analysis, the presence of spasm (OR: 3.53; 95% CI: 1.87-6.65; P < 0.001) and access achieved with more than 1 puncture attempt (OR: 2.58; 95% CI: 1.43-4.66; P = 0.002) were independent predictors of RAO.ConclusionsThe routine use of nitroglycerin was not associated with a reduction in the rate of RAO, regardless of the time of administration (at the beginning or end of the TRA procedure).     

Vascular access and angiographic lesion morphology in elective percutaneous coronary intervention

Many coronary interventionists have a perception that the radial route may not facilitate complex PCI. This study evaluates the association between target lesion morphology, vessel characteristics and angiographic outcome in elective PCI cases carried out through radial versus femoral artery approach.MethodsElective PCI cases over a 23 month period at a tertiary care hospital were reviewed for this analysis. Modified ACC/AHA classification was used to ascertain the impact of different arterial accesses in elective PCI on the angiographic outcome with the complex angiographic lesion morphologies.Results343 Patients and 407 lesions were analyzed. Radial access was the final route in 253 procedures treating a total of 300 lesions, while femoral access was the final route in 90 PCI procedures for treating 107 lesions. Lesion complexity incidence in radial PCI group by using modified ACC/AHA classifications A, B1, B2, and C were 4.67%, 15%, 60.33% and 20%, respectively. While in the femoral PCI, the incidence of lesion types was 6.54%, 15.89%, 42.99%, and 34.58%, respectively. By summation of the complex end of the spectrum for ACC/AHA lesion types B2 plus C, the incidence was 241 lesions (80.33%) in radial PCI vs. 83 lesions (77.57%) in femoral PCI, P = 0.25. Angiographic successful outcome according to the combined end point was achieved in 283 lesions (94.33%) for radial PCI vs. 92 lesions (85.99%) in femoral PCI, P = 0.004.ConclusionThis study confirms that a default radial PCI is an effective strategy for the majority of complex lesions in elective PCI.     

Impact of Radial Access on Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Patients With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts

PurposeWe investigated the impact of radial access on contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in patients with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) undergoing cardiac catheterization.MethodsThis retrospective monocenter study included 527 CABG patients undergoing cardiac catheterization via radial (58.1%, N = 306) or femoral access (41.9%, N = 221). Primary outcome measure was CI-AKI defined in accordance with the KDIGO criteria. Independent predictors for CI-AKI were assessed. 1-year mortality was assessed depending on the occurrence of CI-AKI.ResultsIn total, 99 CABG patients (18.8%) developed CI-AKI within 48 h after cardiac catheterization. Compared to patients without CI-AKI, amount of contrast media used (203.1 ± 102.6 ml vs. 204.2 ± 98.2 ml; P = 0.892) as well as procedural times (87.9 ± 44.8 vs. 79.8 ± 37.0; P = 0.190) were similarly. Regarding vascular access, there was no significant difference in the incidence of CI-AKI between radial and femoral approach (19.0% vs. 18.6%; p = 0.907). However, poor left ventricular ejection fraction (odds ratio [OR] = 1.72, P = 0.026), chronic kidney disease (OR = 2.30, P = 0.001) and acute coronary syndrome (OR = 1.64, P = 0.043) were independent predictors for CI-AKI. The occurrence of CI-AKI was significantly associated with an increased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.52, P = 0.003).ConclusionsWith 18.8%, CI-AKI is a frequent complication in CABG patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Radial access did not decrease the risk when compared to the femoral approach.     

Right Ventricular–Pulmonary Arterial Coupling in Patients With HF Secondary MR: Analysis From the COAPT Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the prognostic impact of right ventricular (RV)–pulmonary arterial (PA) coupling in patients with heart failure (HF) with severe secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) enrolled in the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial.BackgroundRV contractile function and PA pressures influence outcomes in patients with SMR, but the impact of RV-PA coupling in patients randomized to transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) vs guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is unknown.MethodsRV-PA coupling was assessed by the ratio of RV free wall longitudinal strain derived from speckle-tracking echocardiography and noninvasively measured RV systolic pressure. Advanced RV-PA uncoupling was defined as RV free wall longitudinal strain/RV systolic pressure ≤0.5%/mm Hg. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization at 24-month follow-up.ResultsA total of 372 patients underwent speckle-tracking echocardiography, and 70.2% had advanced RV-PA uncoupling. By multivariable analysis, advanced RV-PA uncoupling was strongly associated with an increased risk for the primary 24-month endpoint of death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.31-2.66; P = 0.0005). A similar association was present for all-cause mortality alone (HR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.54-4.29; P = 0.0003). The impact of RV-PA uncoupling was consistent in patients randomized to TEER and GDMT alone. Compared with GDMT alone, the addition of TEER improved 2-year outcomes in patients with (48.0% vs 74.8%; HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.37-0.71) and those without (28.8% vs 47.8%; HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.27-0.97) advanced RV-PA uncoupling (P_interaction = 0.98).ConclusionsIn the COAPT trial, advanced RV dysfunction assessed by RV-PA uncoupling was a powerful predictor of 2-year adverse outcomes in patients with HF and SMR. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial]; NCT01626079)     

Randomized Comparison Between Radial and Femoral Large-Bore Access for Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate whether transradial (TR) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to transfemoral (TF) PCI in complex coronary lesions with large-bore guiding catheters with respect to clinically relevant access site–related bleeding or vascular complications.BackgroundThe femoral artery is currently the most applied access site for PCI of complex coronary lesions, especially when large-bore guiding catheters are required. With downsizing of TR equipment, TR PCI may be increasingly applied in these patients and might be a safer alternative compared with the TF approach.MethodsAn international prospective multicenter trial was conducted, randomizing 388 patients with planned PCI for complex coronary lesions, including chronic total occlusion, left main, heavy calcification, or complex bifurcation, to either 7-F TR access (TRA) or 7-F TF access (TFA). The primary endpoint was defined as access site–related clinically significant bleeding or vascular complications requiring intervention at discharge. The secondary endpoint was procedural success.ResultsThe primary endpoint event rate was 3.6% for TRA and 19.1% for TFA (p < 0.001). The crossover rate from radial to femoral access was 3.6% and from femoral to radial access was 2.6% (p = 0.558). The procedural success rate was 89.2% for TFA and 86.0% for TRA (p = 0.285). There was no difference between TFA and TRA with regard to procedural duration, contrast volume, or radiation dose.ConclusionsIn patients undergoing PCI of complex coronary lesions with large-bore access, radial compared with femoral access is associated with a significant reduction in clinically relevant access-site bleeding or vascular complications, without affecting procedural success. (Complex Large-Bore Radial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Trial [Color]; NCT03846752)     

Distal Versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization and Intervention: Design and Rationale of the DIPRA Trial

BackgroundRadial artery (RA) catheterization is the access of choice over femoral artery access for most interventional vascular procedures given its safety and faster patient recovery. There has been growing interest in distal radial artery (dRA) access as an alternative to the conventional proximal radial artery (pRA) access. Preserving the RA is important which serves as a potential conduit for future coronary artery bypass surgery, dialysis conduit or preserve the artery for future cardiovascular procedures. The dRA runs in close proximity to the radial nerve, which raises the concern of potential detrimental effects on hand function.Study designThe Distal versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for cardiac catheterization and intervention (DIPRA) trial is a prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled, open-label, single center study evaluating the outcomes of hand function and effectiveness of dRA compared to pRA access in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. The eligible subjects will be randomized to dRA and pRA access in a (1:1) fashion.The primary end point is an evaluation of hand function at one and twelve months follow-up. Secondary end points include rates of access site hematoma, access site bleeding, other vascular access complications, arterial access success rate, and RA occlusion at one and twelve months follow up.ConclusionEffects of dRA on hand function remains unknown and it's use questionable in the presence of a widely accepted pRA. DIPRA trial is designed to determine the safety and effectiveness of dRA for diagnostic and interventional cardiovascular procedures compared to the standard of care pRA.