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

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.