In-hospital outcome differences between transradial and transfemoral coronary approaches: Data from the Korean percutaneous coronary intervention registry.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate specific subgroups in which the benefit of transradial coronary interventions (TRIs) would be enhanced.

BACKGROUND

The advantage of TRIs over transfemoral coronary interventions (TFIs) might differ according to a given clinical condition, urgency of the procedure, and operator volume pattern.

METHODS

Using a cohort from the 2014 Korean Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry, in-hospital outcomes of the TRI group (n = 22,993) were matched to those of the TFI group (n = 15,581). After propensity score matching, the composite endpoints between the groups and subgroups for all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarctions (MIs), or transfusions were analyzed.

RESULTS

The composite endpoints occurred less frequently in the TRI group than the TFI group [2.1% vs. 5.5%, OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55-0.72]. The TRI group had a lower rate of death (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.33-0.60) and nonfatal MI (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.81) than the TFI group. The TRI group required fewer transfusions than the TFI group (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88). TRI benefits were consistent across subgroups except patients with chronic kidney disease and those treated in low tertile PCI volume centers. The favorable outcome of TRI was greater in the elderly (≥75 years), patients with ST-elevation MI, those who underwent emergent PCI, and those treated in high tertile PCI volume hospitals (P for the interaction <0.001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to TFI, TRI had favorable composite in-hospital outcomes. TRI benefits were pronounced in high-risk clinical settings and in high PCI volume centers.