Reviews15 December 2015
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Author, Article and Disclosure Information
    Background:

    Studies in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive management showed conflicting conclusions regarding the effect of access site on outcomes.

    Purpose:

    To summarize evidence from recent, high-quality trials that compared clinical outcomes occurring with radial versus femoral access in invasively managed adults with ACS.

    Data Sources:

    English-language publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases between January 1990 and August 2015.

    Study Selection:

    Randomized trials of radial versus femoral access in invasively managed patients with ACS.

    Data Extraction:

    Two investigators independently extracted the study data and rated the risk of bias.

    Data Synthesis:

    Of 17 identified randomized trials, 4 were high-quality multicenter trials that involved a total of 17 133 patients. Pooled data from the 4 trials showed that radial access reduced death (relative risk [RR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90]; P  = 0.003), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 0.86 [CI, 0.75 to 0.98]; P = 0.025), and major bleeding (RR, 0.57 [CI, 0.37 to 0.88]; P = 0.011). Radial procedures lasted slightly longer (standardized mean difference, 0.11 minutes) and had higher risk for access-site crossover (6.3% vs. 1.7%) than did femoral procedures.

    Limitation:

    Heterogeneity in outcomes definitions and potential treatment modifiers across studies, including operator experience in radial procedures and concurrent anticoagulant regimens.

    Conclusion:

    Compared with femoral access, radial access reduces mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and major bleeding in patients with ACS undergoing invasive management.

    Primary Funding Source:

    None. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015022031)

    References

    • 1. Franchi FAngiolillo DJNovel antiplatelet agents in acute coronary syndrome. Nat Rev Cardiol2015;12:30-47. [PMID: 25286881] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 2. Stone GWWitzenbichler BGuagliumi GPeruga JZBrodie BRDudek Det alHORIZONS-AMI Trial InvestigatorsBivalirudin during primary PCI in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med2008;358:2218-30. [PMID: 18499566] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 3. Doyle BJRihal CSGastineau DAHolmes DRBleeding, blood transfusion, and increased mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: implications for contemporary practice. J Am Coll Cardiol2009;53:2019-27. [PMID: 19477350] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 4. Ndrepepa GNeumann FJRichardt GSchulz STölg RStoyanov KMet alPrognostic value of access and non-access sites bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv2013;6:354-61. [PMID: 23881814] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Singh MBleeding avoidance strategies during percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol2015;65:2225-38. [PMID: 25998668] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6. Rao SVCohen MGKandzari DEBertrand OFGilchrist ICThe transradial approach to percutaneous coronary intervention: historical perspective, current concepts, and future directions. J Am Coll Cardiol2010;55:2187-95. [PMID: 20466199] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7. Feldman DNSwaminathan RVKaltenbach LABaklanov DVKim LKWong SCet alAdoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007-2012). Circulation2013;127:2295-306. [PMID: 23753843] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 8. Jolly SSAmlani SHamon MYusuf SMehta SRRadial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J2009;157:132-40. [PMID: 19081409] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9. Mann TCubeddu GBowen JSchneider JEArrowood MNewman WNet alStenting in acute coronary syndromes: a comparison of radial versus femoral access sites. J Am Coll Cardiol1998;32:572-6. [PMID: 9741495] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 10. Saito STanaka SHiroe YMiyashita YTakahashi STanaka Ket alComparative study on transradial approach vs. transfemoral approach in primary stent implantation for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results of the test for myocardial infarction by prospective unicenter randomization for access sites (TEMPURA) trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2003;59:26-33. [PMID: 12720237] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Cantor WJPuley GNatarajan MKDzavik VMadan MFry Aet alRadial versus femoral access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention with adjunct glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in acute myocardial infarction—the RADIAL-AMI pilot randomized trial. Am Heart J2005;150:543-9. [PMID: 16169338] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 12. Brasselet CTassan SNazeyrollas PHamon MMetz DRandomised comparison of femoral versus radial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention using abciximab in acute myocardial infarction: results of the FARMI trial. Heart2007;93:1556-61. [PMID: 17639099] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 13. Li WMLi YZhao JYDuan YNSheng LYang BFet alSafety and feasibility of emergent percutaneous coronary intervention with the transradial access in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Chin Med J (Engl)2007;120:598-600. [PMID: 17442210] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14. Chodór PKrupa HKurek TSokal ASwierad MWas Tet alRADIal versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (RADIAMI): A prospective, randomized, single-center clinical trial. Cardiol J2009;16:332-40. [PMID: 19653176] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 15. Chodór PKurek TKowalczuk ASwierad MWas THonisz Get alRadial vs femoral approach with StarClose clip placement for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. RADIAMI II: a prospective, randomised, single centre trial. Kardiol Pol2011;69:763-71. [PMID: 21850615] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 16. Jolly SSYusuf SCairns JNiemelä KXavier DWidimsky Pet alRIVAL trial groupRadial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet2011;377:1409-20. [PMID: 21470671] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 17. Romagnoli EBiondi-Zoccai GSciahbasi APoliti LRigattieri SPendenza Get alRadial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol2012;60:2481-9. [PMID: 22858390] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18. Bernat IHorak DStasek JMates MPesek JOstadal Pet alST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol2014;63:964-72. [PMID: 24211309] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 19. Valgimigli MGagnor ACalabró PFrigoli ELeonardi SZaro Tet alMATRIX InvestigatorsRadial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet2015;385:2465-76. [PMID: 25791214] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 20. Joyal DBertrand OFRinfret SShimony AEisenberg MJMeta-analysis of ten trials on the effectiveness of the radial versus the femoral approach in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol2012;109:813-8. [PMID: 22196787] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 21. Karrowni WVyas AGiacomino BSchweizer MBlevins AGirotra Set alRadial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2013;6:814-23. [PMID: 23968700] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 22. De Luca GSchaffer AWirianta JSuryapranata HComprehensive meta-analysis of radial vs femoral approach in primary angioplasty for STEMI. Int J Cardiol2013;168:2070-81. [PMID: 23490083] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 23. Dechartres ATrinquart LBoutron IRavaud PInfluence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ2013;346:f2304. [PMID: 23616031] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 24. Egger MJuni PBartlett CHolenstein FSterne JHow important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess2003;7:1-76. [PMID: 12583822] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25. Moher DLiberati ATetzlaff JAltman DGPRISMA GroupPreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ2009;339:b2535. [PMID: 19622551] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 26. Higgins JGreen SCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008. Google Scholar
    • 27. DerSimonian RLaird NMeta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials1986;7:177-88. [PMID: 3802833] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 28. Biggerstaff BJTweedie RLIncorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Stat Med1997;16:753-68. [PMID: 9131763] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 29. Cornell JEMulrow CDLocalio RStack CBMeibohm ARGuallar Eet alRandom-effects meta-analysis of inconsistent effects: a time for change. Ann Intern Med2014;160:267-70. [PMID: 24727843] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 30. Higgins JPThompson SGDeeks JJAltman DGMeasuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ2003;327:557-60. [PMID: 12958120] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 31. Vazquez-Rodriguez JMCalvino-Santos RABaz-Alonso JATrillo-Nouche RSalgado-Fernandez JSanmartin-Fernandez Met alRadial vs. femoral arterial access in emergent coronary interventions for acute myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation. J Am Coll Cardiol2007;49 9 Suppl 2 12B. Google Scholar
    • 32. Yan ZXZhou YJZhao YXLiu YYShi DMGuo YHet alSafety and feasibility of transradial approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. Chin Med J (Engl)2008;121:782-6. [PMID: 18701040] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 33. Gan LLi QLiu RZhao YQiu JLiao YEffectiveness and feasibility of transradial approaches for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Nanjing Med Univ2009;23:270-4. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 34. Hou LWei YDLi WMXu YWComparative study on transradial versus transfemoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in Chinese patients with acute myocardial infarction. Saudi Med J2010;31:158-62. [PMID: 20174731] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 35. Wang YBFu XHWang XCGu XSZhao YJHao GZet alRandomized comparison of radial versus femoral approach for patients with STEMI undergoing early PCI following intravenous thrombolysis. J Invasive Cardiol2012;24:412-6. [PMID: 22865313] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 36. Koltowski LFilipiak KJKochman JPietrasik ARdzanek AHuczek Zet alAccess for percutaneous coronary intervention in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: radial vs. femoral—a prospective, randomised clinical trial (OCEAN RACE). Kardiol Pol2014;72:604-11. [PMID: 24671918] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 37. Mehta SRJolly SSCairns JNiemela KRao SVCheema ANet alRIVAL InvestigatorsEffects of radial versus femoral artery access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation. J Am Coll Cardiol2012;60:2490-9. [PMID: 23103036] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 38. Jolly SSMehta SRCoronary intervention: radial artery access comes of age. Lancet2015;385:2437-9. [PMID: 25791213] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 39. Eikelboom JWMehta SRAnand SSXie CFox KAYusuf SAdverse impact of bleeding on prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation2006;114:774-82. [PMID: 16908769] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 40. Mehran RPocock SNikolsky EDangas GDClayton TClaessen BEet alImpact of bleeding on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention results from a patient-level pooled analysis of the REPLACE-2 (randomized evaluation of PCI linking angiomax to reduced clinical events), ACUITY (acute catheterization and urgent intervention triage strategy), and HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2011;4:654-64. [PMID: 21700252] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 41. Kwok CSKhan MARao SVKinnaird TSperrin MBuchan Iet alAccess and non-access site bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention and risk of subsequent mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events: systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv2015;8 4. [PMID: 25825007] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 42. Jolly SSCairns JYusuf SNiemela KSteg PGWorthley Met alRIVAL InvestigatorsProcedural volume and outcomes with radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol2014;63:954-63. [PMID: 24269362] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 43. Moussa IDKlein LWShah BMehran RMack MJBrilakis ESet alConsideration of a new definition of clinically relevant myocardial infarction after coronary revascularization: an expert consensus document from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). J Am Coll Cardiol2013;62:1563-70. [PMID: 24135581] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 44. Mehran RRao SVBhatt DLGibson CMCaixeta AEikelboom Jet alStandardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation2011;123:2736-47. [PMID: 21670242] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 45. Ratib KMamas MAAnderson SGBhatia GRoutledge HDe Belder Met alBritish Cardiovascular Intervention Society and the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes ResearchAccess site practice and procedural outcomes in relation to clinical presentation in 439,947 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the United kingdom. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2015;8:20-9. [PMID: 25616814] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 46. Hess CNPeterson EDNeely MLDai DHillegass WBKrucoff MWet alThe learning curve for transradial percutaneous coronary intervention among operators in the United States: a study from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circulation2014;129:2277-86. [PMID: 24756064] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 47. Lee MSWolfe MStone GWTransradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes: re-evaluation of the current body of evidence. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2013;6:1149-52. [PMID: 24262614] doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2013.08.003 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar