Procedural volume and outcomes with radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial
PubMed
24269362
DOI
10.1016/j.jacc.2013.10.052
PII: S0735-1097(13)06022-1
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- acute coronary syndrome(s), femoral access, percutaneous coronary intervention, procedural volume, radial access,
- MeSH
- Acute Coronary Syndrome diagnostic imaging surgery MeSH
- Femoral Artery MeSH
- Radial Artery MeSH
- Coronary Angiography methods statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention methods MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Catheterization, Peripheral methods statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Prognosis MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach. BACKGROUND: RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) was a randomized trial of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention (N = 7,021), which overall did not show a difference in primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding. METHODS: In pre-specified subgroup analyses, the hazard ratios for the primary outcome were compared among centers divided by tertiles and among individual operators. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent effect of center and operator volumes after adjusting for other variables. RESULTS: In high-volume radial centers, the primary outcome was reduced with radial versus femoral access (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.87) but not in intermediate- (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.72) or low-volume centers (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.31; interaction p = 0.021). High-volume centers enrolled a higher proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). After adjustment for STEMI, the benefit of radial access persisted at high-volume radial centers. There was no difference in the primary outcome between radial and femoral access by operator volume: high-volume operators (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.28), intermediate (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27), and low (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; interaction p = 0.536). However, in a multivariable model, overall center volume and radial center volume were independently associated with the primary outcome but not femoral center volume (overall percutaneous coronary intervention volume HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96; radial volume HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97; and femoral volume HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07; p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Procedural volume and expertise are important, particularly for radial percutaneous coronary intervention. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273).
Charles University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady Prague Czech Republic
Skane University Hospital Lund Sweden
Southlake Regional Health Centre University of Toronto Ontario Canada
St Michael's Hospital University of Toronto Ontario Canada
Tampere University Hospital and Heart Center Tampere Finland
Université Paris Diderot Paris France
University of Adelaide Royal Adelaide Hospital Adelaide Australia
University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada
References provided by Crossref.org
ClinicalTrials.gov
NCT01014273