Distal or Traditional Transradial Access Site for Coronary Procedures: A Single-Center,Randomized Study

ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the distal transradial approach (dTRA) versus the conventional transradial approach (TRA) for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions.BackgroundThe recommended approach for coronary procedures is TRA. However, it is associated with radial artery occlusion (RAO). The dTRA could potentially decrease the incidence of RAO.MethodsOne thousand forty-two consecutive patients were randomized (1:1) to right dTRA or TRA. The primary endpoint was the rate of RAO, which was evaluated by Doppler ultrasound at 60 days after randomization.ResultsFive hundred eighteen and 524 patients were randomized to dTRA and TRA, respectively. Follow-up Doppler evaluation of the radial artery was accomplished in 404 (78.0%) patients in the dTRA group and 392 (74.8%) in the TRA group. The rate of RAO was significantly reduced in the dTRA group compared with TRA group (3.7% vs 7.9%, respectively; P = 0.014). The rate of successful sheath insertion was lower in the dTRA group compared with the TRA group (78.7% vs 94.8%, respectively; P < 0.001). More punctures (median = 2 [IQR: 1-3] vs median = 1 [IQR: 1-2]; P < 0.001) and a longer time (120 vs 75 seconds; P < 0.001) were required for sheath insertion in the dTRA group compared with the TRA group. The hemostasis time was shorter in the dTRA group compared with the TRA group (60 vs 120 minutes; P < 0.001). The dose area product was higher in the dTRA group (median = 32,729 in the dTRA vs 28,909 cGy/cm² in the TRA group; P = 0.02). No significant differences were observed in the secondary safety endpoints (bleeding [Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥2] and severe radial artery spasm).ConclusionsAccording to our study, dTRA was associated with a lower rate of forearm RAO, a shorter time of hemostasis, a higher crossover rate and dose area product, and a longer procedural time compared with TRA.     

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).     

Femoral or Radial Approach in Treatment of Coronary Chronic Total Occlusion: A Randomized Clinical Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare transradial access (TRA) with transfemoral access (TFA) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundTRA reduces the risk for vascular access complications but may make complex PCI, such as CTO PCI, more challenging.MethodsFORT CTO (Femoral or Radial Approach in the Treatment of Coronary Chronic Total Occlusion) (NCT03265769) was a prospective, noninferiority, randomized controlled study of TRA vs TFA for CTO PCI. The primary study endpoint was procedural success, defined as technical success without any in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events. The secondary study endpoint was major access-site complications.ResultsBetween 2017 and 2021, 610 of 800 patients referred for CTO PCI at 4 centers were randomized to TRA (n = 305) or TFA (n = 305). Mean J-CTO (Multicenter CTO Registry in Japan) (2.1 ± 0.1 vs 2.2 ± 0.1; P = 0.279), PROGRESS CTO (Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention) (1.3 ± 0.9 vs 1.1 ± 1.0; P = 0.058) and PROGRESS CTO complication (2.4 ± 1.8 vs 2.3 ± 1.8; P = 0.561) scores and use of the retrograde approach (11% vs 14%; P = 0.342) were similar in the TRA and TFA groups. TRA was noninferior to TFA for procedural success (84% vs 86%; P = 0.563) but had fewer access-site complications (2.0% vs 5.6%; P = 0.019). There was no difference between TFA and TRA in procedural duration, contrast volume, or radiation dose.COnclusionsTRA was noninferior to TFA for CTO PCI but had fewer access-site complications.     

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.     

Prevention of Radial Artery Occlusion of 3 Hemostatic Methods in Transradial Intervention for Coronary Angiography

ObjectivesThe main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of 3 hemostatic methods for the prevention of early radial artery occlusion (RAO): standard patent hemostasis, patent hemostasis with ulnar compression or the ulnar artery transient compression facilitating radial artery patent hemostasis (ULTRA) method, and facilitated hemostasis with a hemostatic disc.BackgroundThere are no prospective randomized studies that compare early RAO rates with the 3 most used nonocclusive hemostatic methods.MethodsThis was a prospective, longitudinal, comparative, and randomized study. The final population analyzed was 1,469, and they were randomized into 3 groups: 491 patients in group 1 with standard patent hemostasis, 490 patients in group 2 with the ULTRA method, and 488 patients in group 3 with facilitated hemostasis with a hemostatic disc.ResultsThe RAO rate at 24 hours of the total population analyzed was 4.6%. By hemostasis groups, it was 3.6% for patent hemostasis, 5.5% for the ULTRA method, and 4.7% for facilitated hemostasis with a hemostatic disc, with no statistical difference among the 3 groups (P = 0.387). At 30 days, the overall rate of RAO was 1.8%, and by groups, it was 1.4% for the patent hemostasis group, 1.8% for the ULTRA method group, and 2.2% for the facilitated hemostasis with a hemostatic disc group, respectively (P = 0.185).ConclusionsThe rates of RAO at 24 hours evaluated by plethysmography oximetry and confirmed by ultrasound among 3 current radial hemostasis methods (ie, patent hemostasis, the ULTRA method, and facilitated hemostasis with a hemostatic disc) are not different.     

Radial Hemostasis Is Facilitated With a Potassium Ferrate Hemostatic Patch: The STAT2 Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this trial was to test whether the potassium ferrate hemostatic patch (PFHP) as an adjunct to the TR Band (TRB) facilitated an early deflation protocol.BackgroundShorter TRB compression times may reduce the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO) and reduce observation time after transradial access.MethodsA total of 443 patients were randomized to the TRB or PFHP + TRB, with complete TRB deflation attempted 60 minutes postprocedure. The primary outcome was the time to successful full deflation of the TRB without bleeding, with secondary outcomes of time to discharge and complications including hematoma, RAO, or bleeding requiring intervention beyond TRB reinflation.ResultsTime to complete TRB deflation was 66 ± 14 minutes with the PFHP vs 113 ± 56 minutes for the TRB alone (P < 0.001). Minor rebleeding requiring TRB reinflation was much more frequent without the PFHP (0% vs 67.7%; P < 0.001) with 2.3 ± 1.3 additional reinflation and deflation attempts needed for hemostasis. Hematomas developed in 4.0% of the PFHP group and 6.8% of the TRB group (P = 0.20). RAO was rare (<1%), although 41% of patients received <5,000 U heparin. Among percutaneous coronary intervention patients, time to TRB deflation (68 ± 15 minutes vs 138 ± 62 minutes; P < 0.001) and composite complications (10.0% vs 24.2%; P = 0.04) were reduced with the PFHP.ConclusionsCompared with the TRB alone, the PFHP facilitated early 60-minute TRB deflation following transradial catheterization, with a numeric reduction in vascular complications. RAO occurs rarely with early deflation regardless of heparin dose. (Comparing TR Band to StatSeal in Conjunction With TR Band II [StatSeal II]; NCT04046952)     

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)     

International Hand Function Study Following Distal Radial Access: The RATATOUILLE Study

BackgroundDistal radial access (DRA) has been proposed to improve procedure ergonomics and favor radial artery patency. Although promising data, nothing is known on evolving hand function after DRA.ObjectivesThis study sought to comprehensively evaluate hand function in patients undergoing DRA.MethodsReal-world patients undergoing DRA undertook a thorough multimodality assessment of hand function implementing multidomain questionnaires (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Levine-Katz), and motor (pinch grip test) and sensory (Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments test) examinations of both hands. All assessments were performed at preprocedural baseline and planned at 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up (FU). Adverse clinical and procedural events were documented too.ResultsData of 313 patients (220 men, age 66 ± 10 years) from 9 international centers were analyzed. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and the Levine-Katz scores slightly improved from baseline to FU (P = 0.008 and P = 0.029, respectively). Pinch strength mildly improved from baseline to FU (P < 0.001 for both the left and right hands). Similarly, touch pressure threshold appeared to faintly improve in both the left and right hands (P < 0.012 for all the sites). For both motor and sensory function tests, comparable findings were found for the DRA hand and the contralateral one, with no significant differences between them. Repeated assessment of all tests over all FU time points similarly showed lack of worsening hand function. Access-related adverse events included 19 harmless bleedings and 3 forearm radial artery and 3 distal radial artery occlusions. None affected hand function at FU.ConclusionsIn a systematic multidimensional assessment, DRA was not associated with hand function impairment. Moreover, DRA emerges as a safe alternative vascular access.     

Distal Radial Artery Approach to Prevent Radial Artery Occlusion Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the rate of proximal radial artery occlusion (RAO) with Doppler ultrasound between distal and conventional radial access 24 h and 30 days after a transradial coronary procedure.BackgroundThe use of distal radial access to prevent proximal RAO (PRAO) in the proximal segment at 24 h and 30 days after a procedure, compared with conventional radial access, is unknown.MethodsThis was a prospective, comparative, longitudinal, randomized study. A total of 282 patients were randomized to either proximal radial access (n = 142) or distal radial access (n = 140) to evaluate the superiority of the distal approach in the prevention of PRAO with Doppler ultrasound 24 h and 30 days after a transradial coronary procedure.ResultsIn the per protocol analysis, the rates of PRAO at 24 h and 30 days were 8.4% and 5.6% in the proximal group and 0.7% and 0.7% in the distal group, respectively (24 h: odds ratio [OR]: 12.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6 to 100.0; p = 0.002; 30 days: OR: 8.2; 95% CI: 1.0 to 67.2; p = 0.019). In an intention-to-treat analysis, the 24-h and 30-day rates of PRAO were 8.8% and 6.4% for proximal radial access and 1.2% and 0.6% in the distal radial access group (24 h: OR: 7.4; 95% CI: 1.6 to 34.3; p = 0.003; 30 days: OR: 10.6; 95% CI: 1.3 to 86.4; p = 0.007).ConclusionsDistal radial access prevents RAO in the proximal segment at 24 h and 30 days after the procedure compared with conventional radial access.     

Impacto del acceso vascular en el pronóstico tras la angioplastia coronaria en pacientes con alto riesgo hemorrágico: subanálisis predefinido del estudio LEADERS FREE

Introduction and objectivesThe prognostic impact of bleeding in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients depending on the location of bleeding and prognosis in nonaccess site bleeding is unknown. We aimed to assess the impact of vascular access site on bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary interventions for HBR patients at 30-day and 2-year follow-up.MethodsThe LEADERS FREE trial included 2432 HBR PCI patients. A Biolimus A9 drug-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent for safety and efficacy. This is a predefined sub-analysis of the LEADERS FREE trial.ResultsTransradial access (TRA) was used in 1454 patients (59.8%) and transfemoral access (TFA) in 978 (40.2%), according to operator preference. The safety and benefits of drug-coated stents over bare-metal stents were independent of vascular access. At 30 days and 2 years, major bleeding had occurred in 2.4% and 7.5% of TRA patients and 4.6% and 10.9% of TFA patients (P = .003), respectively. Most of these events in both groups (2.1% and 7.0% for TRA; 3.2% and 9.4% for TFA, respectively) were nonaccess site-related. TRA was associated with a significant reduction in adjusted rates of major bleeding both at 30 days (HR, 1.98; 95%CI, 1.25-3.11; P = .003) and at 2 years of follow-up (HR, 1.51; 95%CI, 1.14-2.01; P = .003). This difference was driven by both access and nonaccess bleeding.ConclusionsOperators preferred TRA for most HBR patients, which was associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding events. However, most of these events in this population are unrelated to vascular access.     

Best Practices for the Prevention of Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Diagnostic Angiography and Intervention: An International Consensus Paper

Transradial access (TRA) is increasingly used worldwide for percutaneous interventional procedures and associated with lower bleeding and vascular complications than transfemoral artery access. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the most frequent post-procedural complication of TRA, restricting the use of the same radial artery for future procedures and as a conduit for coronary artery bypass graft. The authors review recent advances in the prevention of RAO following percutaneous TRA diagnostic or interventional procedures. Based on the available data, the authors provide easily applicable and effective recommendations to prevent periprocedural RAO and maximize the chances of access in case of repeat catheterization or coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.     

Distal Radial Access: Consensus Report of the First Korea-Europe Transradial Intervention Meeting

Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures, transradial access, compared with transfemoral access, is associated with a reduced risk for complications including mortality, especially in higher risk patients. However, transradial access is limited by radial artery occlusion (RAO) that despite being mostly asymptomatic because of the extensive anastomoses between the forearm arteries restricts future use of the same radial artery. Distal radial access (DRA) in the anatomic snuffbox or on the dorsum of the hand has recently gained global popularity as an alternative access route for vascular procedures. A strong anatomic and physiological rationale yields potential for significantly reduced risk for RAO and positive impact on procedural outcome for better patient care. Indeed, currently published studies buttress very low rates of RAO after DRA, hence supporting its development. The authors provide an analysis of the foundation of DRA, provide historical background, and offer a critical review of its current status and future directions. Also, given the limited evidence currently available to properly perform DRA in the real world, consensus opinion on what is considered optimal practice is also presented to supplement this document and enhance the implementation of DRA while minimizing its complications.     

Comparison of distal radial access versus standard transradial access in patients with smaller diameter radial Arteries(The distal radial versus transradial access in small transradial ArteriesStudy: D.A.T.A - S.T.A.R study)

Aims:To evaluate safety and efficacy of distal right radial access (DRRA) compared to right radial access (RRA), for coronary procedures, in patients with smaller diameter radial arteries (SDRA) (radial artery diameter (RAD) < 2.1 mm).Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective analysis of safety and efficacy of DRRA Vs. RRA in patients undergoing coronary procedures at our cardiac catheterization laboratories over a 10- month period between September 2017 and June, 2018 (first 5 calendar months with RRA-first; next 5 calendar months with DRRA-first). All patients underwent pre-procedure ultrasound of arm arteries. All patients had RAD<2.1 mm (mean RAD 1.63 ± 0.27 mm; RAD≤1.6 mm in 73.5%). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Primary end-point of puncture success was significantly lower in DRRA vs RRA group [79.5% vs 98.5%, p < 0.0001]. Puncture success was also lower in the subgroup of patients with RAD <1.6 mm Vs. ≥ 1.6 mm in the DRRA group (p < 0.0001). The secondary end-point of puncture time was significantly higher (2.1 ± 1.4 min vs. 1.0 ± 0.45 min, p < 0.00001) in the DRRA Vs. RRA group. The occurrence of vascular access site complications (including access site hematomas), radial artery occlusion (RAO) and distal RAO at day 1 and day 30 were similar between RRA and DRRA groups.Non-vascular access-site complication was seen only in the DRRA group.ConclusionDRRA is a safe and effective access for coronary procedures; though technically challenging in patients with SDRA (RAD<2.1 mm; mean RAD 1.63 ± 0.27 mm), with lower puncture success and higher puncture time compared to RRA.     

Transcaval Versus Transaxillary TAVR in Contemporary Practice: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare transcaval and transaxillary artery access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at experienced medical centers in contemporary practice.BackgroundThere are no systematic comparisons of transcaval and transaxillary TAVR access routes.MethodsEight experienced centers contributed local data collected for the STS/ACC TVT Registry (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry) between 2017 and 2020. Outcomes after transcaval and axillary/subclavian (transaxillary) access were adjusted for baseline imbalances using doubly robust (inverse propensity weighting plus regression) estimation and compared.ResultsTranscaval access was used in 238 procedures and transaxillary access in 106; for comparison, transfemoral access was used in 7,132 procedures. Risk profiles were higher among patients selected for nonfemoral access but similar among patients requiring transcaval and transaxillary access. Stroke and transient ischemic attack were 5-fold less common after transcaval than transaxillary access (2.5% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06-0.72; P = 0.014) compared with transfemoral access (1.7%). Major and life-threatening bleeding (Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 ≥ type 2) were comparable (10.0% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.26-1.66; P = 0.38) compared with transfemoral access (3.5%), as was blood transfusion (19.3% vs 21.7%; OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.49-2.33; P = 0.87) compared with transfemoral access (7.1%). Vascular complications, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and survival were similar between transcaval and transaxillary access. More patients were discharged directly home and without stroke or transient ischemic attack after transcaval than transaxillary access (87.8% vs 62.3%; OR: 5.19; 95% CI: 2.45-11.0; P < 0.001) compared with transfemoral access (90.3%).ConclusionsPatients undergoing transcaval TAVR had lower rates of stroke and similar bleeding compared with transaxillary access in a contemporary experience from 8 US centers. Both approaches had more complications than transfemoral access. Transcaval TAVR access may offer an attractive option.     

Comparative Analysis of Patient Characteristics in Cardiogenic Shock Studies: Differences Between Trials and Registries

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the differences in cardiogenic shock patient characteristics in trial patients and real-life patients.BackgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) is a leading cause of mortality in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the enrollment of patients into clinical trials is challenging and may not be representative of real-world patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of studies in patients presenting with AMI-related CS and compared patient characteristics of those enrolled into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with those in registries.ResultsWe included 14 RCTs (n = 2,154) and 12 registries (n = 133,617). RCTs included more men (73% vs 67.7%, P < 0.001) compared with registries. Patients enrolled in RCTs had fewer comorbidities, including less hypertension (61.6% vs 65.9%, P < 0.001), dyslipidemia (36.4% vs 53.6%, P < 0.001), a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (7.1% vs 10.7%, P < 0.001), and prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (5.4% vs 7.5%, P < 0.001). Patients enrolled in RCTs also had lower lactate levels (4.7 ± 2.3 mmol/L vs 5.9 ± 1.9 mmol/L, P < 0.001) and higher mean arterial pressure (73.0 ± 8.8 mm Hg vs 62.5 ± 12.2 mm Hg, P < 0.001). Percutaneous coronary intervention (97.5% vs 58.4%, P < 0.001) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11.6% vs 3.4%, P < 0.001) were used more often in RCTs. The in-hospital mortality (23.9% vs 38.4%, P < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (39.9% vs 45.9%, P < 0.001) were lower in RCT patients.ConclusionsRCTs in AMI-related CS tend to enroll fewer women and lower-risk patients compared with registries. Patients enrolled in RCTs are more likely to receive aggressive treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and have lower in-hospital and 30-day mortality.     

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)     

Feasibility of Coronary Access in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Previous TAVR

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to characterize the feasibility of coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute settings among patients who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundImpaired coronary access after TAVR may be challenging and particularly in acute settings could have deleterious consequences.MethodsIn this international registry, data from patients with prior TAVR requiring urgent or emergent CA were retrospectively collected. A total of 449 patients from 25 sites with acute coronary syndromes (89.1%) and other acute cardiovascular situations (10.9%) were included.ResultsSuccess rates were high for CA of the right coronary artery (98.3%) and left coronary artery (99.3%) and were higher among patients with short stent-frame prostheses (SFPs) than in those with long SFPs for CA of the right coronary artery (99.6% vs 95.9%; P = 0.005) but not for CA of the left coronary artery (99.7% vs 98.7%; P = 0.24). PCI of native coronary arteries was successful in 91.4% of cases and independent of valve type (short SFP 90.4% vs long SFP 93.4%; P = 0.44). Guide engagement failed in 6 patients, of whom 3 underwent emergent coronary artery bypass grafting and another 3 died in the hospital. Among patients requiring revascularization of native vessels, independent predictors of 30-day all-cause mortality were prior diabetes, cardiogenic shock, and failed PCI but not valve type or success of coronary engagement.ConclusionsCA or PCI after TAVR in acute settings is usually successful, but selective coronary engagement may be more challenging in the presence of long SFPs. Among patients requiring PCI, prior diabetes, cardiogenic shock, and failed PCI were predictors of early mortality.     

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)     

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)     

Budesonide Oral Suspension Improves Outcomes in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Results From a Phase 3 Trial

Background & AimsEosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, immune-mediated disease for which there is currently no pharmacologic therapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.MethodsIn this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients 11–55 years of age with EoE and dysphagia were randomized 2:1 to receive budesonide oral suspension (BOS) 2.0 mg twice daily or placebo for 12 weeks at academic or community care practices. Co-primary endpoints were the proportion of stringent histologic responders (≤6 eosinophils/high-power field) or dysphagia symptom responders (≥30% reduction in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ] score) over 12 weeks. Changes in DSQ score (key secondary endpoint) and EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) (secondary endpoint) from baseline to week 12, and safety parameters were examined.ResultsOverall, 318 patients (BOS, n = 213; placebo, n = 105) were randomized and received ≥1 dose of study treatment. More BOS-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a stringent histologic response (53.5% vs 1.0%; Δ53% [95% confidence interval (CI), 43.8%–59.5%]; P < .001) or symptom response (52.6% vs 39.1%; Δ13% [95% CI, 1.6%–24.3%]; P = .024) over 12 weeks. BOS-treated patients also had greater improvements in least-squares mean DSQ scores and EREFS over 12 weeks than placebo-treated patients: DSQ, –13.0 (SEM 1.2) vs –9.1 (SEM 1.5) (Δ–3.9 [95% CI, –7.1 to –0.8]; P = .015); EREFS, –4.0 (SEM 0.3) vs –2.2 (SEM 0.4) (Δ–1.8 [95% CI, –2.6 to –1.1]; P < .001). BOS was well tolerated; most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.ConclusionsIn patients with EoE, BOS 2.0 mg twice daily was superior to placebo in improving histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes over 12 weeks. BOS 2.0 mg twice daily was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02605837.