Key result
Transradial PCI in acute coronary syndromes yielded similar 9-day rates of death, MI, or refractory ischemia compared to transfemoral PCI (7.1% vs 7.7%) but reduced major bleeding (1.6% vs 3.5%).
Why the study?
Does the transradial approach reduce adverse clinical events and bleeding compared to the transfemoral approach in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing PCI?
Cohort (n=7,885)
Does the transradial approach reduce adverse clinical events and bleeding compared to the transfemoral approach in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing PCI?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.1% vs 7.7%
The transradial approach for PCI in acute coronary syndromes significantly reduces major bleeding compared to the transfemoral approach without increasing ischemic events.
Transradial PCI was associated with less bleeding without excess ischemia in ACS; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hamon et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Acute coronary syndromes (n=7,885). Transradial approach (TRA) vs. Transfemoral approach (TFA) was evaluated on death, myocardial infarction, refractory ischaemia. Transradial PCI in acute coronary syndromes yielded similar 9-day rates of death, MI, or refractory ischemia compared to transfemoral PCI (7.1% vs 7.7%) but reduced major bleeding (1.6% vs 3.5%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: