TY - JOUR
T1 - Radial access first for PCI in acute coronary syndrome
T2 - Are we propping up a straw man?
AU - Marbach, Jeffrey A.
AU - Alhassani, Saad
AU - Wells, George
AU - Le May, Michel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.
PY - 2020/9/1
Y1 - 2020/9/1
N2 - Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represent the recommended revascularization strategy for patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, periprocedural bleeding events, of which up to 50% are related to the access site, remain an important complication of PCI and are associated with higher costs, prolonged hospital stays, and increased mortality. Several randomized trials have demonstrated that PCI performed via radial artery (RA) access is associated with a reduction in bleeding events, and perhaps a reduction in mortality compared with femoral artery (FA) access. As a result, current practice guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommend that RA be the default strategy for PCI in patients presenting with ACS. The recently published Safety and Efficacy of Femoral Access vs. Radial Access in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (SAFARI-STEMI) trial challenges the benefits of a default RA approach in a contemporary setting where additional bleeding-reduction strategies (i.e., avoidance of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, routine use of bivalirudin for procedural anticoagulation, and vascular closure devices) were employed. In order to better understand the evidence that has shaped the current recommendations, we present a review of the background studies and major randomized trials comparing RA with FA in patients presenting with ACS.
AB - Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represent the recommended revascularization strategy for patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, periprocedural bleeding events, of which up to 50% are related to the access site, remain an important complication of PCI and are associated with higher costs, prolonged hospital stays, and increased mortality. Several randomized trials have demonstrated that PCI performed via radial artery (RA) access is associated with a reduction in bleeding events, and perhaps a reduction in mortality compared with femoral artery (FA) access. As a result, current practice guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommend that RA be the default strategy for PCI in patients presenting with ACS. The recently published Safety and Efficacy of Femoral Access vs. Radial Access in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (SAFARI-STEMI) trial challenges the benefits of a default RA approach in a contemporary setting where additional bleeding-reduction strategies (i.e., avoidance of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, routine use of bivalirudin for procedural anticoagulation, and vascular closure devices) were employed. In order to better understand the evidence that has shaped the current recommendations, we present a review of the background studies and major randomized trials comparing RA with FA in patients presenting with ACS.
KW - Femoral artery
KW - Mortality
KW - Percutaneous coronary intervention
KW - Radial artery
KW - Revascularization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090108790&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85090108790&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00059-020-04958-4
DO - 10.1007/s00059-020-04958-4
M3 - Article
C2 - 32548776
AN - SCOPUS:85090108790
SN - 0340-9937
VL - 45
SP - 548
EP - 556
JO - Herz
JF - Herz
IS - 6
ER -