Comparison of radial to femoral PCI in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review

Abstract

In randomized control trials and meta-analyses in patients with acute MI undergoing PCI, the radial artery (RA) approach compared to the femoral artery (FA) approach has shown to safely reduce access site related bleeding, length of hospitalization, and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates. However, these studies have excluded patients with cardiogenic shock. A systematic search was conducted to retrieve studies that investigated the safety of RA to FA PCI in patients with AMI and cardiogenic shock. Primary outcomes of interest was the pooled relative risk ratio (RR) of access site related bleeding. Secondary outcomes included (i) 30-day all cause mortality, (ii) major bleeding, (iii) final TIMI 3 flow, (iv) fluoroscopy time, and (v) amount of contrast volume administered. 6 observational studies with 7,753 patients met inclusion; 5,347 (69 %) with STEMI, 2,406 (31 %) with non-STEMI. In comparison of RA to FA PCI, there was less access site related bleeding (relative risk (RR) 0.11, p = 0.001), less 30-day mortality (RR 0.65, p = 0.0 < 0.001), and less major bleeding (RR of 0.46 p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in final TIMI 3 flow (p = 0.27), fluoroscopy time (p = 0.95), and contrast volume administered (p = 0.59). In conclution, despite its limitations, our analysis demonstrates an association towards lower adverse events in the RA PCI group. Although we believe that the choice of access site in a high-risk setting should be at the operator discretion, if technically feasible, the RA appears to be a reasonable vascular access approach in high-risk patients in cardiogenic shock.