BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials have shown diverse results for radial access in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Moreover, it is questionable whether radial access improves outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing PPCI. We aimed to investigate the outcome according to access site in patients with or without cardiogenic shock, in daily clinical practice.
METHODS: For the present analysis we included 9,980 patients undergoing PPCI between 2012 and 2018, registered in the multi-centre, nationwide registry on PCI for myocardial infarction (MI). In-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and net adverse clinical events (NACE) until discharge were compared between 4,498 patients with radial (45%) and 5,482 patients with femoral (55%) access.
RESULTS: Radial compared to femoral access was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (3.5% vs. 7.7%; P<0.01). Multivariable logistic regression analysis confirmed reduced in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43 to 0.75]. Furthermore, MACE (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.78) as well as NACE (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.75) occurred less frequently in patients with radial access. Interaction analysis with cardiogenic shock showed an effect modification, resulting in lower mortality in PCI via radial access in patients without, but no difference in those with cardiogenic shock (OR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.96).
CONCLUSIONS: Radial access for patients with acute MI undergoing PPCI is associated with improved survival in a large contemporary cohort of daily practice. However, this beneficial effect is restricted to hemodynamically stable patients.
- Cardiogenic shock
- Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI)
- Radial access
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine