Why the study?
Does the transradial approach improve clinical outcomes compared to the transfemoral approach in patients undergoing primary PCI for acute coronary syndrome?
Does the transradial approach improve clinical outcomes compared to the transfemoral approach in patients undergoing primary PCI for acute coronary syndrome?
The transradial approach is recommended for primary PCI in acute coronary syndrome due to reduced bleeding and mortality, despite a steeper learning curve.
The transradial approach (TRA) is the recommended technique for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndrome, according to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines. There is a large body of evidence showing reduction in bleeding and mortality when the TRA is used. The TRA is also more convenient for patients, by allowing early mobilisation. Finally, by facilitating patient turnover and fast (re)transfer after the procedure, the TRA enables operators to meet the current recommendations of early invasive therapy in both ST and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. On the other hand, the TRA is technically more challenging than the transfemoral approach (TFA) and requires longer learning curve, which hinders its uptake by low-volume operators/centres. Nevertheless, in the hands of experienced high-volume operators, such as at Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis (OLVG) Amsterdam, the TRA achieves comparable procedural outcomes and favourable clinical results compared with the TFA, as it is in cases of primary PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piers et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: