Access-Site Crossover in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Management.
Options
BORIS DOI
Date of Publication
February 22, 2021
Publication Type
Article
Division/Institute
Contributor
Gragnano, Felice | |
Leonardi, Sergio | |
Vranckx, Pascal | |
Di Maio, Dario | |
Monda, Emanuele | |
Fimiani, Luigi | |
Fioretti, Vincenzo | |
Chianese, Salvatore | |
Esposito, Fabrizio | |
Franzese, Michele | |
Scalise, Martina | |
D'Angelo, Claudio | |
Scalise, Renato | |
De Blasi, Gabriele | |
Andò, Giuseppe | |
Esposito, Giovanni | |
Calabrò, Paolo | |
Pedrazzini, Giovanni |
Subject(s)
Series
JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions
ISSN or ISBN (if monograph)
1876-7605
Publisher
Elsevier
Language
English
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
33602431
Uncontrolled Keywords
Description
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to assess the impact of access-site crossover in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management via radial or femoral access.
BACKGROUND
There are limited data on the clinical implications of access-site crossover.
METHODS
In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox)-Access trial, 8,404 patients with acute coronary syndrome were randomized to radial or femoral access. Patients undergoing access-site crossover or successful access site were investigated. Thirty-day coprimary outcomes were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and a composite of MACE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding (net adverse clinical events [NACE]).
RESULTS
Access-site crossover occurred in 183 of 4,197 patients (4.4%) in the radial group (mainly to femoral access) and 108 of 4,207 patients (2.6%) in the femoral group (mainly to radial access). In multivariate analysis, the risk for coprimary outcomes was not significantly higher with radial crossover compared with successful radial (MACE: adjusted rate ratio [adjRR]: 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 1.93; p = 0.32; NACE: adjRR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94 to 2.06; p = 0.094) or successful femoral access (MACE: adjRR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.81; p = 0.47; NACE: adjRR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.86; p = 0.24). Access site-related Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding was higher with radial crossover than successful radial access. Femoral crossover remained associated with higher risks for MACE (adjRR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.87; p = 0.007) and NACE (adjRR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.62; p = 0.019) compared with successful femoral access. Results remained consistent after excluding patients with randomized access not attempted.
CONCLUSIONS
Crossover from radial to femoral access abolishes the bleeding benefit offered by the radial over femoral artery but does not appear to increase the risk for MACE or NACE compared with successful radial or femoral access. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).
The aim of this study was to assess the impact of access-site crossover in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management via radial or femoral access.
BACKGROUND
There are limited data on the clinical implications of access-site crossover.
METHODS
In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox)-Access trial, 8,404 patients with acute coronary syndrome were randomized to radial or femoral access. Patients undergoing access-site crossover or successful access site were investigated. Thirty-day coprimary outcomes were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and a composite of MACE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding (net adverse clinical events [NACE]).
RESULTS
Access-site crossover occurred in 183 of 4,197 patients (4.4%) in the radial group (mainly to femoral access) and 108 of 4,207 patients (2.6%) in the femoral group (mainly to radial access). In multivariate analysis, the risk for coprimary outcomes was not significantly higher with radial crossover compared with successful radial (MACE: adjusted rate ratio [adjRR]: 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 1.93; p = 0.32; NACE: adjRR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94 to 2.06; p = 0.094) or successful femoral access (MACE: adjRR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.81; p = 0.47; NACE: adjRR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.86; p = 0.24). Access site-related Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding was higher with radial crossover than successful radial access. Femoral crossover remained associated with higher risks for MACE (adjRR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.87; p = 0.007) and NACE (adjRR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.62; p = 0.019) compared with successful femoral access. Results remained consistent after excluding patients with randomized access not attempted.
CONCLUSIONS
Crossover from radial to femoral access abolishes the bleeding benefit offered by the radial over femoral artery but does not appear to increase the risk for MACE or NACE compared with successful radial or femoral access. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).
File(s)
| File | File Type | Format | Size | License | Publisher/Copright statement | Content | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gragnano_JACCCardiovascInterv_2021.pdf | Adobe PDF | 906.21 KB | publisher | published | |||
| Gragnano_JACCCardiovascInterv_2021_AAM.pdf | Adobe PDF | 906.68 KB | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) | accepted |