1.
Radial versus femoral access in ACS patients undergoing complex PCI is associated with consistent bleeding benefit and no excess of risks
Landi A, Branca M, Vranckx P, Leonardi S, Frigoli E, Heg D, Calabro P, Esposito G, Sardella G, Tumscitz C, et al
The Canadian journal of cardiology. 2022
Abstract
BACKGROUND The comparative effectiveness of transradial (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. METHODS Among 8,404 ACS patients in the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX (MATRIX)-Access trial, 5,233 underwent noncomplex (TRA, n=2,590 and TFA, n=2,643) and 1,491 complex PCI (TRA, n=777 and TFA, n=714). 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 BARC type 3-5 bleeding (net adverse cardiovascular events, NACE) at 30 days. RESULTS Rates of 30-day MACE (hazard ratio [HR]:0.94; 95% confidence interval [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 endpoints 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) due to their higher absolute risk. CONCLUSIONS Among ACS patients, PCI complexity does not affect the comparative efficacy and safety of TRA versus 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.
2.
Association of acute kidney injury and bleeding events with mortality after radial or femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial
Rothenbuhler M, Valgimigli M, Odutayo A, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, Vranckx P, Turturo M, Moretti L, Amico F, Uguccioni L, et al
European heart journal. 2019
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Aims: In the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX (MATRIX) trial, adults with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary intervention who were allocated to radial access had a lower risk of bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI), and all-cause mortality, as compared with those allocated to femoral access. The mechanism of the mortality benefit of radial access remained unclear. Methods and results: We used multistate and competing risk models to determine the effects of radial and femoral access on bleeding, AKI and all-cause mortality in the MATRIX trial and to disentangle the relationship between these different types of events. There were large relative risk reductions in mortality for radial compared with femoral access for the transition from AKI to death [hazard ratio (HR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.97] and for the pathway from coronary intervention to AKI to death (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.92). Conversely, there was little evidence for a difference between radial and femoral groups for the transition from bleeding to death (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.42-2.64) and the pathway from coronary intervention to bleeding to death (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.28-2.49). Conclusion: The prevention of AKI appeared predominantly responsible for the mortality benefit of radial as compared with femoral access in the MATRIX trial. There was little evidence for an equally important, independent role of bleeding.
3.
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.