Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Nov;108(11):563-75.
doi: 10.1016/j.acvd.2015.06.005. Epub 2015 Sep 11.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock: A radial-first centre experience and meta-analysis of published studies

Affiliations
Free article
Review

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock: A radial-first centre experience and meta-analysis of published studies

Vincent Roule et al. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2015 Nov.
Free article

Abstract

Background: The transradial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with a better outcome in myocardial infarction (MI), but patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) were excluded from most trials.

Aims: To compare outcomes of PCI for MI-related CS via the transradial versus transfemoral approach.

Methods: A prospective cohort of 101 consecutive patients admitted for PCI for MI-related CS were treated via the transradial (n=74) or transfemoral (n=27) approach. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for prespecified variables and a propensity score for approach were used to compare mortality, death/MI/stroke and bleeding between the two groups. A complementary meta-analysis of six studies was also performed.

Results: Patients in the transradial group were younger (P=0.039), more often male (P=0.002) and had lower GRACE and CRUSADE scores (P=0.003 and 0.001, respectively) and rates of cardiac arrest before PCI (P=0.009) and mechanical ventilation (P=0.006). Rates of PCI success were similar. At a mean follow-up of 756 days, death occurred in 40 (54.1%) patients in the transradial group versus 22 (81.5%) in the transfemoral group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.84; P=0.012). The transradial approach was associated with reduced rates of death/MI/stroke (adjusted HR: 0.53, 95%CI: 0.31-0.91; P=0.02) and major bleeding (adjusted HR: 0.34, 95%CI: 0.13-0.87; P=0.02). The meta-analysis confirmed the benefit of transradial access in terms of mortality (relative risk [RR]: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.58-0.68) and major bleeding (RR: 0.43, 95%CI: 0.32-0.59).

Conclusion: The transradial approach in the setting of PCI for ischaemic CS is associated with a dramatic reduction in mortality, ischaemic and bleeding events, and should be preferred to the transfemoral approach in radial expert centres.

Keywords: Accès vasculaire; Cardiogenic shock; Choc cardiogénique; Death; Décès; Major bleeding; Saignement majeur; Transradial access; Vascular access; Voie radiale.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources