1.
Mortality after Bleeding versus Myocardial Infarction in Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Piccolo R, Oliva A, Avvedimento M, Franzone A, Windecker S, Valgimigli M, Esposito G, Jüni P
EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2021
Abstract
BACKGROUND Bleeding is the principal safety concern of antithrombotic therapy and occurs frequently among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). AIMS We aim to evaluate the prognostic impact of bleeding on mortality compared with that of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with CAD. METHODS We searched Medline and Embase for studies that included patients with CAD and that reported both, the association between the occurrence of bleeding and mortality, and between the occurrence of MI and mortality within the same population. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality associated with bleeding and MI were extracted and ratio of hazard ratios (rHRs) were pooled by using inverse variance weighted random effects meta-analyses. Early events included periprocedural or within 30-day events after revascularization or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Late events included spontaneous or beyond 30-day events after revascularization or ACS. RESULTS 141,059 patients were included across 16 studies and 128,660 (91%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Major bleeding, increased the risk of mortality to the same extent of MI (rHRbleedingvs.MI 1.10, 95%CI, 0.71-1.71, P=0.668). Early bleeding was associated with a higher risk of mortality than early MI (rHRbleedingvs.MI 1.46, 95%CI, 1.13-1.89, P=0.004), although this finding was not present when only randomized trials were included. Late bleeding was prognostically comparable to late MI (rHRbleedingvs.MI 1.14, 95%CI, 0.87-1.49, P=0.358). CONCLUSIONS Compared with MI, major and late bleeding is associated with a similar increase in mortality, whereas early bleeding might have a stronger association with mortality.
2.
Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation: a pre-specified analysis from the randomized minimizing adverse haemorrhagic events by transradial access site and systemic implementation of angioX (MATRIX access)
Vranckx P, Frigoli E, Rothenbuhler M, Tomassini F, Garducci S, Ando G, Picchi A, Sganzerla P, Paggi A, Ugo F, et al
European Heart Journal. 2017;38((14):):1069-1080
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Aims: To assess whether radial compared with femoral access is associated with consistent outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Methods and results: In the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX (MATRIX) programme patients were randomized to radial or femoral access, stratified by STEMI (2001 radial, 2009 femoral) and NSTE-ACS (2196 radial, 2198 femoral). The 30-day co-primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as MACE or major bleeding In the overall study population, radial access reduced the NACE but not MACE endpoint at the prespecified 0.025 alpha. MACE occurred in 121 (6.1%) STEMI patients with radial access vs. 126 (6.3%) patients with femoral access [rate ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75-1.24; P = 0.76] and in 248 (11.3%) NSTE-ACS patients with radial access vs. 303 (13.9%) with femoral access (RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.67-0.96; P = 0.016) (Pint = 0.25). NACE occurred in 142 (7.2%) STEMI patients with radial access and in 165 (8.3%) patients with femoral access (RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.68-1.08; P = 0.18) and in 268 (12.2%) NSTE-ACS patients with radial access compared with 321 (14.7%) with femoral access (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.69-0.97; P = 0.023) (Pint = 0.76). All-cause mortality and access site-actionable bleeding favoured radial access irrespective of ACS type (Pint = 0.11 and Pint = 0.36, respectively). Conclusion: Radial as compared with femoral access provided consistent benefit across the whole spectrum of patients with ACS, without evidence that type of presenting syndrome affected the results of the random access allocation.