Explore the vast range of titles available.

Small randomized trials have demonstrated that radial access reduces access site complications compared to a femoral approach. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine if radial access reduces major bleeding and as a result can reduce death and ischemic events compared to femoral access. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from 1980 to April 2008. Relevant conference abstracts from 2005 to April 2008 were searched. Randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access coronary angiography or intervention that reported major bleeding, death, myocardial infarction, and procedural or fluoroscopy time were included. A fixed-effects model was used with a random effects for sensitivity analysis. Radial access reduced major bleeding by 73% compared to femoral access (0.05% vs 2.3%, OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.16, 0.45], P < .001). There was a trend for reductions in the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (2.5% vs 3.8%, OR 0.71 [95% CI 0.49-1.01], P = .058) as well as death (1.2% vs 1.8% OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.42-1.30], P = .29). There was a trend for higher rate of inability to the cross lesion with wire, balloon, or stent during percutaneous coronary intervention with radial access (4.7% vs 3.4% OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.87, 1.94], P = .21). Radial access reduced hospital stay by 0.4 days (95% CI 0.2-0.5, P = .0001). Radial access reduced major bleeding and there was a corresponding trend for reduction in ischemic events compared to femoral access. Large randomized trials are needed to confirm the benefit of radial access on death and ischemic events.

Despite lower risks of access site–related complications with transradial approach (TRA), its clinical benefit for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing TRA and transfemoral approach (TFA) for PCI. Randomized trials and observational studies (1993-2011) comparing TRA with TFA for PCI with reports of ischemic and bleeding outcomes were included. Crude and adjusted (for age and sex) odds ratios (OR) were estimated by a hierarchical Bayesian random-effects model with prespecified stratification for observational and randomized designs. The primary outcomes were rates of death, combined incidence of death or myocardial infarction, bleeding, and transfusions, early (≤30 days) and late after PCI. We collected data from 76 studies (15 randomized, 61 observational) involving a total of 761,919 patients. Compared with TFA, TRA was associated with a 78% reduction in bleeding (OR 0.22, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.16-0.29) and 80% in transfusions (OR 0.20, 95% CrI 0.11-0.32). These findings were consistent in both randomized and observational studies. Early after PCI, there was a 44% reduction of mortality with TRA (OR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.45-0.67), although the effect was mainly due to observational studies (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.40-0.63, adjusted OR 0.49 [95% CrI 0.37-0.60]), with an OR of 0.80 (95% CrI 0.49-1.23) in randomized trials. Our results combining observational and randomized studies show that PCI performed by TRA is associated with substantially less risks of bleeding and transfusions compared with TFA. Benefit on the incidence of death or combined death or myocardial infarction is found in observational studies but remains inconclusive in randomized trials.

Small trials have suggested that radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces vascular complications and bleeding compared with femoral access. We aimed to assess whether radial access was superior to femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who were undergoing coronary angiography with possible intervention. The RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial was a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Patients with ACS were randomly assigned (1:1) by a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system to radial or femoral artery access. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft (non-CABG)-related major bleeding at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days. A masked central committee adjudicated the primary outcome, components of the primary outcome, and stent thrombosis. All other outcomes were as reported by the investigators. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01014273. Between June 6, 2006, and Nov 3, 2010, 7021 patients were enrolled from 158 hospitals in 32 countries. 3507 patients were randomly assigned to radial access and 3514 to femoral access. The primary outcome occurred in 128 (3·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial access group compared with 139 (4·0%) of 3514 in the femoral access group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·72–1·17; p=0·50). Of the six prespecified subgroups, there was a significant interaction for the primary outcome with benefit for radial access in highest tertile volume radial centres (HR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28–0·87; p=0·015) and in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (0·60, 0·38–0·94; p=0·026). The rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days was 112 (3·2%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 114 (3·2%) of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·76–1·28; p=0·90). The rate of non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days was 24 (0·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 33 (0·9%) of 3514 patients in the femoral group (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·43–1·23; p=0·23). At 30 days, 42 of 3507 patients in the radial group had large haematoma compared with 106 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·40, 95% CI 0·28–0·57; p<0·0001). Pseudoaneurysm needing closure occurred in seven of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 23 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·30, 95% CI 0·13–0·71; p=0·006). Radial and femoral approaches are both safe and effective for PCI. However, the lower rate of local vascular complications may be a reason to use the radial approach. Sanofi-Aventis, Population Health Research Institute, and Canadian Network for Trials Internationally (CANNeCTIN), an initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Clopidogrel and aspirin are the most commonly used antiplatelet therapies for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed the effect of various clopidogrel and aspirin regimens in prevention of major cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis in patients undergoing PCI. The CURRENT-OASIS 7 trial was undertaken in 597 centres in 39 countries. 25 086 individuals with acute coronary syndromes and intended early PCI were randomly assigned to double-dose (600 mg on day 1, 150 mg on days 2–7, then 75 mg daily) versus standard-dose (300 mg on day 1 then 75 mg daily) clopidogrel, and high-dose (300–325 mg daily) versus low-dose (75–100 mg daily) aspirin. Randomisation was done with a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system. The clopidogrel dose comparison was double-blind and the aspirin dose comparison was open label with blinded assessment of outcomes. This prespecified analysis is of the 17 263 individuals who underwent PCI. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days. Analyses were by intention to treat, adjusted for propensity to undergo PCI. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00335452. 8560 patients were assigned to double-dose and 8703 to standard-dose clopidogrel (8558 and 8702 completed 30-day follow-up, respectively), and 8624 to high-dose and 8639 to low-dose aspirin (8622 and 8638 completed 30-day follow-up, respectively). Compared with the standard dose, double-dose clopidogrel reduced the rate of the primary outcome (330 events [3·9%] vs 392 events [4·5%]; adjusted hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·74–0·99, p=0·039) and definite stent thrombosis (58 [0·7%] vs 111 [1·3%]; 0·54 [0·39–0·74], p=0·0001). High-dose and low-dose aspirin did not differ for the primary outcome (356 [4·1%] vs 366 [4·2%]; 0·98, 0·84–1·13, p=0·76). Major bleeding was more common with double-dose than with standard-dose clopidogrel (139 [1·6%] vs 99 [1·1%]; 1·41, 1·09–1·83, p=0·009) and did not differ between high-dose and low-dose aspirin (128 [1·5%] vs 110 [1·3%]; 1·18, 0·92–1·53, p=0·20). In patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndromes, a 7-day double-dose clopidogrel regimen was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis compared with the standard dose. Efficacy and safety did not differ between high-dose and low-dose aspirin. A double-dose clopidogrel regimen can be considered for all patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with an early invasive strategy and intended early PCI. Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower rates of access site complications and bleeding. However, elderly patients have more complex vascular anatomy and radial access may be more challenging in this population. There remains uncertainty regarding the role of radial access in elderly patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. The RIVAL trial randomized patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing cardiac catheterization to radial versus femoral access. In this analysis, the rates of access site complications and access site cross-over were compared across different age groups. Among the 7,021 patients, 1035 (15%) were ≥75 years of age. Across all age categories, radial access was consistently associated with higher rates of access site cross over and lower rates of major access site complications, with no significant interaction between age and access site. Radial access was associated with lower rates of major vascular access site complications in patients ≥75 years of age (3.6% vs 6.6%; P = .03) and in patients <75 years of age (1.0% vs 3.2%; P < .001; P value for interaction = .2). The rates of access site crossover were higher with radial access among patients ≥75 (12.5% vs 2.6%; P < .001) and <75 (6.7% vs 1.9%; P < .001; P value for interaction = .9). There were no significant differences in the primary composite outcome (death, myocardial infarction, stroke or non coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding) or its individual components in either age group. In patients ≥75 years of age undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in procedure time (120 vs 115 minutes; P = .3). Consistent with the overall RIVAL trial population, elderly patients undergoing cardiac catheterization have lower rates of major bleeding or access site complications and higher rates of access site crossover with radial access compared to femoral access.

Women are at higher risk than men for bleeding and vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Compared with femoral access, radial access reduces these complications but may be more challenging in women because of higher rates of radial artery spasm, tortuosity, and occlusion as well as lower rates of procedure success. Whether the safety advantages of radial versus femoral access in women undergoing PCI are outweighed by reduced effectiveness has not been studied. The Study of Access site For Enhancement of PCI for Women is a prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing radial with femoral arterial access in women undergoing PCI. In conjunction with the US Food and Drug Administration's Critical Path Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, this study embeds the randomized clinical trial into the existing infrastructure of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry™ CathPCI Registry™ through the National Institute of Health's National Cardiovascular Research Infrastructure. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 2, 3, or 5) or vascular complication requiring intervention occurring at 72 hours after PCI or by hospital discharge. The primary feasibility end point is procedure success. Secondary end points include procedure duration, contrast volume, radiation dose, quality of life, and a composite of 30-day death, vascular complication, or unplanned revascularization.

A major limitation of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for the treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is impaired microvascular perfusion due to embolization and obstruction of microcirculation with thrombus. Manual thrombectomy has the potential to reduce distal embolization and improve microvascular perfusion. Clinical trials have shown mixed results regarding thrombectomy. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of routine upfront manual aspiration thrombectomy during PPCI compared with percutaneous coronary intervention alone in patients with STEMI. This is a multicenter, prospective, open, international, randomized trial with blinded assessment of outcomes. Patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI are randomized to upfront routine manual aspiration thrombectomy with the Export catheter (Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, CA) or to percutaneous coronary intervention alone. The primary outcome is the composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or new or worsening New York Heart Association class IV heart failure up to 180 days. The trial uses an event-driven design and will recruit 10,700 patients. The TOTAL trial will determine the effect of routine manual aspiration thrombectomy during PPCI on clinically important outcomes.

Inflammation is associated with adverse cardiovascular events. Data from recent trials suggest that colchicine reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. In this multicenter trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned patients who had myocardial infarction to receive either colchicine or placebo and either spironolactone or placebo. The results of the colchicine trial are reported here. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned ischemia-driven coronary revascularization, evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. C-reactive protein was measured at 3 months in a subgroup of patients, and safety was also assessed. A total of 7062 patients at 104 centers in 14 countries underwent randomization; at the time of analysis, the vital status was unknown for 45 patients (0.6%), and this information was most likely missing at random. A primary-outcome event occurred in 322 of 3528 patients (9.1%) in the colchicine group and 327 of 3534 patients (9.3%) in the placebo group over a median follow-up period of 3 years (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.16; P = 0.93). The incidence of individual components of the primary outcome appeared to be similar in the two groups. The least-squares mean difference in C-reactive protein levels between the colchicine group and the placebo group at 3 months, adjusted according to the baseline values, was -1.28 mg per liter (95% CI, -1.81 to -0.75). Diarrhea occurred in a higher percentage of patients with colchicine than with placebo (10.2% vs. 6.6%; P<0.001), but the incidence of serious infections did not differ between groups. Among patients who had myocardial infarction, treatment with colchicine, when started soon after myocardial infarction and continued for a median of 3 years, did not reduce the incidence of the composite primary outcome (death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned ischemia-driven coronary revascularization). (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03048825.).

With femoral access, bivalirudin decreases risks of major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and provides better net clinical benefit compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Whether this benefit exists compared to UFH monotherapy is less clear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes in patients undergoing transfemoral PCI with UFH or bivalirudin. Randomized trials (n = 3) and observational studies (n = 13) comparing bivalirudin to UFH monotherapy were reviewed. Primary outcomes were 30-day rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) including death, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent revascularization, as well as all-cause mortality, MI, major bleeding, and blood transfusion. We collected data from 16 studies involving 32,492 patients undergoing PCI. Most observational studies were performed in the United States, whereas all randomized trials were done in Europe. Compared to UFH monotherapy, bivalirudin was associated with similar risk of MACEs (odds ratios [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 1.12), a substantial 45% relative decrease in major bleeding (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.72), and a trend in the decrease of transfusion (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.08). A decrease in mortality was seen in observational studies (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85) but remained inconclusive in randomized trials (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.01). MI rate was similar with the 2 anticoagulants. In conclusion, in patients undergoing transfemoral PCI, the benefit of bivalirudin over UFH monotherapy is driven by a significant decrease in major bleeding with similar rates of MACE. As PCI practice moves toward other bleeding-avoidance strategies such as the radial approach, future studies should focus on the interaction between anticoagulant strategy and access-site choice.

The prevention of major bleeding during percutaneous coronary intervention is one of the most widely discussed and often controversial topics within interventional cardiology. The choice of arterial access should be considered a mechanism for bleeding avoidance, and various strategies have been proposed to prevent or lower major bleeding and vascular complications with varying levels of strength. Herein, we review the current literature on arterial access as a bleeding avoidance strategy during percutaneous coronary intervention and its impact on outcome and provide a consensus opinion based on the strength of the evidence supporting various techniques.