4.4 Article

Acceptance and safety of femoral versus radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): results from a large monitor-controlled German registry (QuIK)

Journal

BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-021-02283-0

Keywords

Percutaneous coronary intervention; Radial access; Coronary artery disease; Acute myocardial infarction; BNK; Access site complications

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study reveals an increasing use of radial access in Germany in recent years. The radial approach is found to be favorable in terms of MACE outcomes in non-myocardial infarction patients, as well as in access site complications regardless of the indication for percutaneous intervention.
Background In 2015 and 2018, European Society of Cardiology guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) favoring radial access over femoral access were published. These recommendations were based on randomized trials suggesting that patients treated radially experienced reduced bleeding complications and all-cause mortality. We aimed to assess acceptance and results of radial access in a real-world scenario by analyzing all PCI cases in the Quality Assurance in Invasive Cardiology (QuIK) registry. Methods The QuIK registry prospectively collects data on all diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures from 148 private practice cardiology centers in Germany. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACE) were defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death during hospitalization. Results From 2012 to 2018, 189,917 patients underwent PCI via either access method. The rate of radial approach steadily increased from 13 to 49%. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to age or extent of coronary disease. Femoral approach was significantly more common in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Overall, there were significant differences in MACE (radial 0.12%; femoral 0.24%; p < 0.0009) and access site complications (radial 0.2%; femoral 0.8% (p < 0.0009). Conclusion Our data reveals an increase in use of radial access in recent years in Germany. The radial approach emerged as favorable regarding MACE in non-myocardial infarction patients, as well as favorable regarding access site complication regardless of indication for percutaneous intervention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available