JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes: re-evaluation of the current body of evidence.

Recent literature has argued the superiority of radial access compared with femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Three particular trials-RIVAL (Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Intervention), RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome), and STEMI-RADIAL (ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated by Radial or Femoral Approach-Randomized Multicenter Study Comparing Radial Versus Femoral Approach in Primary PCI)-demonstrated lower rates of bleeding and vascular complications with the transradial approach. Bleeding is a major independent predictor of negative long-term outcomes including death, predisposes patients to transfusions, and attenuates the ability to administer cardioprotective post-procedural anticoagulation. These trials, however, employed suboptimal antithrombotic practices. Namely, the dose of heparin and percent of patients on glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were unnecessarily high, and a paucity of patients were on bivalirudin, which decreases bleeding and improves outcomes compared with heparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The use of larger gauge catheters in femoral access patients predisposed them to major bleeding and its subsequent complications. In addition, these trials were carried forth in high-volume transradial centers, further limiting the ability to generalize the findings to most PCI centers. These are important considerations especially for high-risk and ACS patients, in whom the negative implications of major bleeding are even greater. Without an optimized design, the applications of the trial findings are uncertain. Ultimately, a trial comparing femoral versus radial access in patients on bivalirudin, potent oral antiplatelet medication, and without adjunctive glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors is needed to assess outcomes based on access site alone.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app