Key result
Radial access reduces 30-day NACE vs femoral access in ACS, cutting MACE ~20% in NSTE-ACS.
Why the study?
Does radial access reduce 30-day MACE and NACE in patients with acute coronary syndromes compared to femoral access?
RCT (n=8,404)
Stratified by STEMI and NSTE-ACS
Does radial access reduce 30-day MACE and NACE in patients with acute coronary syndromes compared to femoral access?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Radial access provides consistent clinical benefit over femoral access across the spectrum of acute coronary syndromes, reducing net adverse clinical events and access site bleeding.
Aims: To assess whether radial compared with femoral access is associated with consistent outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Methods and results: In the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX (MATRIX) programme patients were randomized to radial or femoral access, stratified by STEMI (2001 radial, 2009 femoral) and NSTE-ACS (2196 radial, 2198 femoral). The 30-day co-primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as MACE or major bleeding In the overall study population, radial access reduced the NACE but not MACE endpoint at the prespecified 0.025 alpha. MACE occurred in 121 (6.1%) STEMI patients with radial access vs. 126 (6.3%) patients with femoral access [rate ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75-1.24; P = 0.76] and in 248 (11.3%) NSTE-ACS patients with radial access vs. 303 (13.9%) with femoral access (RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.67-0.96; P = 0.016) (Pint = 0.25). NACE occurred in 142 (7.2%) STEMI patients with radial access and in 165 (8.3%) patients with femoral access (RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.68-1.08; P = 0.18) and in 268 (12.2%) NSTE-ACS patients with radial access compared with 321 (14.7%) with femoral access (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.69-0.97; P = 0.023) (Pint = 0.76). All-cause mortality and access site-actionable bleeding favoured radial access irrespective of ACS type (Pint = 0.11 and Pint = 0.36, respectively). Conclusion: Radial as compared with femoral access provided consistent benefit across the whole spectrum of patients with ACS, without evidence that type of presenting syndrome affected the results of the random access allocation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vranckx et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Acute coronary syndromes (STEMI and NSTE-ACS) (n=8,404). Radial access vs. Femoral access was evaluated on 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and net adverse clinical events (NACE). Radial access reduced 30-day NACE but not MACE overall vs femoral access in ACS patients, with MACE significantly reduced in the NSTE-ACS subgroup (11.3% vs 13.9%; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67-0.96).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: