Radial versus femoral vascular access in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Are the results of femoral operators unfairly represented in observational research?

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized controlled trials comparing femoral and radial access in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) have shown conflicting results regarding the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding.

METHODS

Using data from the HEAT-PPCI trial, we compared the primary efficacy (all-cause mortality, stroke, new myocardial infarction or unplanned repeat revascularization) and safety (major bleeding BARC 3-5) outcomes at 28 days, by final access site used (radial or femoral) and by default operator type. We then assessed outcomes in femoral cases performed by both operator types.

RESULTS

Radial access (RA) was associated with fewer MACE (91/1472 = 6.2% vs. 36/332 = 10.8% P = .003) and major bleeding events (38/1472 = 2.6% vs 22/332 = 6.6% P = .001) when compared to femoral access (FA). When analyzing outcomes by default operator type, there was a similar incidence of MACE (111/1575 = 7% vs 16/229 = 7% P = .97) and major bleeding events (49/1575 = 3.1% vs 11/229 = 4.8% P = .18). In cases where FA was performed by default radial operators, there was a higher rate of MACE (22/122 = 18% vs 14/210 = 6.7% P = .003) and major bleeding events (11/122 = 9% vs 11/210 = 5.2% P < .001), potentially explained by a higher risk profile in these cases.

CONCLUSION

Default femoral operators achieved comparable outcomes when compared to default radial operators. The less favorable outcomes observed in FA cases may result from its selective use by radial operators in high risk cases.