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)
Access-Site Crossover in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Management / Gragnano, F.; Branca, M.; Frigoli, E.; Leonardi, S.; Vranckx, P.; Di Maio, D.; Monda, E.; Fimiani, L.; Fioretti, V.; Chianese, S.; Esposito, F.; Franzese, M.; Scalise, M.; D'Angelo, C.; Scalise, R.; De Blasi, G.; Ando, G.; Esposito, G.; Calabro, P.; Windecker, S.; Pedrazzini, G.; Valgimigli, M.. - In: JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS. - ISSN 1936-8798. - 14:4(2021), pp. 361-373. [10.1016/j.jcin.2020.11.042]
Access-Site Crossover in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Management
Chianese S.;Esposito F.;Franzese M.;Scalise M.;Esposito G.;
2021
Abstract
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)I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
