Key result
The transradial approach for rotational atherectomy showed no significant difference in MACCE compared to the transfemoral approach (11.3% vs. 17.8%; HR 1.520; 95% CI 0.889-2.600; p=0.126).
Why the study?
Rotational atherectomy is crucial for PCI of heavily calcified coronary lesions, but clinical outcomes comparing radial versus femoral access required evaluation.
Does the transradial approach improve clinical outcomes compared to the transfemoral approach in patients undergoing rotational atherectomy for severely calcified coronary lesions?
Cohort (n=540)
Yes
Does the transradial approach improve clinical outcomes compared to the transfemoral approach in patients undergoing rotational atherectomy for severely calcified coronary lesions?
The transradial approach for rotational atherectomy yields comparable long-term clinical outcomes to the transfemoral approach, with a trend toward reduced in-hospital bleeding.
Supports transradial rotational atherectomy feasibility; leaves open randomized confirmation of equivalence and bleeding trends.
Background and Objectives: Rotational atherectomy (RA) is a crucial method for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of heavily calcified coronary lesions. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing RA via the radial versus femoral approach. Methods: The Rotational Atherectomy in Calcified Lesions in Korea (ROCK) registry included consecutive patients with severely calcified coronary artery disease who received RA during PCI at nine tertiary centers in Korea. A total of 540 patients who underwent PCI with RA were enrolled between October 2019 and January 2010. We retrospectively investigated the clinical outcomes between the transradial and transfemoral approaches. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) within 36 months of follow-up. Results: Of the 540 patients, 248 patients (45.9%) were in the transradial group, and 292 patients (54.1%) were in the transfemoral group. There were no significant differences in MACCE (11.3% vs. 17.8%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.520; 95% confidence interval: 0.889–2.600; p = 0.126) and procedural success (97.6% vs. 95.2%, p = 0.145). The occurrence of in-hospital bleeding was numerically higher in the transfemoral group, but the difference was not statistically significant (8 [3.2%] vs. 19 [6.5%], p = 0.081) Conclusions: In this study, the transradial approach did not show a significant difference in clinical outcomes but tended to have lower bleeding events compared to the transfemoral approach. RA via the transradial approach can be a useful vascular access option compared to the transfemoral approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Severely calcified coronary artery disease (n=540). Transradial approach vs. Transfemoral approach was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (HR 1.520, 95% CI 0.889-2.600, p=0.126). The transradial approach for rotational atherectomy showed no significant difference in MACCE compared to the transfemoral approach (11.3% vs. 17.8%; HR 1.520; 95% CI 0.889-2.600; p=0.126).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: