Impact of Access Site on Periprocedural Bleeding, Cerebrovascular, and Coronary Events in High Bleeding-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Findings from the RIVA-PCI Trial
Martin Borlich,Uwe Zeymer,Harm Wienbergen,Hans-Peter Hobbach,Alessandro Cuneo,Raffi Bekeredjian,Oliver Ritter,Birgit Hailer,Klaus Hertting,Marcus Hennersdorf,Werner Scholtz,Peter Lanzer,Harald Mudra,Markus Schwefer,Peter Schwimmbeck,Christoph Liebetrau,Holger Thiele,Christoph Claas,Thomas Riemer,Ralf Zahn,Leon Iden,Gert Richardt,Ralph Toelg
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.19.23292795
2023-07-24
MedRxiv
Abstract:Background: The preference for using transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) in patients requiring coronary intervention is based on evidence suggesting that TRA is associated with less bleeding and vascular complications, shorter hospital stays, improved quality of life, and a potential beneficial effect on mortality. We have limited study data comparing both access routes in a patient population with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, who have a particular increased risk of bleeding, while AF itself is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism. Methods: Using data from the RIVA-PCI registry, which includes atrial fibrillation patients undergoing PCI, we analyzed a high-bleeding-risk cohort. These patients were predominantly on oral anticoagulation (OAC) for atrial fibrillation and the PCI was performed via radial or femoral access. Endpoints examined were in-hospital bleeding (BARC 2-5), cerebral events (TIA, hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke) and coronary events (stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction). Results: Out of 1636 patients, 854 (52.2%) underwent transfemoral access (TFA), while 782 (47.8%) received the procedure via transradial access (TRA), including nine patients with brachial artery puncture. Mean age was 75.5 years. Groups were similar in terms of age, sex distribution, atrial fibrillation type, cardiovascular history, risk factors, and comorbidities, except for a higher incidence of previous bypass surgeries, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with GFR<60 ml/min in the TFA group. Clinically relevant differences in antithrombotic therapy and combinations at the time of PCI were absent. However, upon discharge, transradial PCI patients had a higher rate of triple therapy, while dual therapy was preferred after transfemoral procedures. Radial access was more frequently chosen for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina pectoris (UAP) cases (NSTEMI 26.6% vs. 17.0%, p<0.05; UAP 21.5% vs. 14.5%, p<0.05), while femoral access was more common for elective PCI (60.3% vs. 44.1%, p<0.05). No differences were observed for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Both groups had similar rates of cerebral events (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p=0.93), but TFA group had a higher incidence of bleeding (BARC 2-5) (4.2% vs. 1.5%, p<0.05), mainly driven by BARC 3 bleeding (1.5% vs. 0.4%, p<0.05). No significant differences were found for stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p=0.93; TFA 0.4% vs. TRA 0.1%, p=0.36). Conclusions: In high bleeding risk (HBR) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PCI for acute or chronic coronary syndrome, utilizing radial access (TRA) resulted in a significant decrease of in-hospital bleeding, while not increasing the risk of embolic or ischemic events compared to femoral access.