Enrico Frigoli

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. RESULTS The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627.).

Scientific Foundation and Possible Implications for Practice of the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX (MATRIX) Trial

Early invasive management and the use of combined antithrombotic therapies have decreased the risk of recurrent ischaemia in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) but have also increased the bleeding risk. Transradial intervention (TRI) and bivalirudin infusion compared to transfemoral intervention (TFI) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) decrease bleeding complications in patients with ACS. To what extent, a bleeding preventive strategy incorporating at least one of these two treatment options translates into improved outcomes is a matter of debate. The Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX study is a large-scale, multicenter, prospective, open-label trial, conducted at approximately 100 sites in Europe aiming to primarily assess whether TRI and bivalirudin infusion, as compared to TFI and UFH plus provisional GPI, decrease the 30-day incidence of death, myocardial infarction or stroke across the whole spectrum of ACS patients.

Bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes managed invasively with and without ST elevation (MATRIX): randomised controlled trial.

Objective To test the optimal antithrombotic regimen in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Patients with acute coronary syndrome with and without ST segment elevation in 78 centres in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. Participants 7213 patients with acute coronary syndrome and planned percutaneous coronary intervention: 4010 with ST segment elevation and 3203 without ST segment elevation. The primary study results in the overall population have been reported previously. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned, in an open label fashion, to one of two regimens: bivalirudin with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors restricted to procedural complications or heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Main outcome measures Primary endpoints were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction or stroke; and net adverse clinical events, defined as major bleeding or major adverse cardiovascular events, both assessed at 30 days. Analyses were performed by the principle of intention to treat. Results Use of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in patients assigned to heparin was planned at baseline in 30.7% of patients with ST segment elevation, in 10.9% without ST segment elevation, and in no patients assigned to bivalirudin. In patients with ST segment elevation, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 118 (5.9%) assigned to bivalirudin and 129 (6.5%) assigned to heparin (rate ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.16; P=0.43), whereas net adverse clinical events occurred in 139 (7.0%) patients assigned to bivalirudin and 163 (8.2%) assigned to heparin (0.84, 0.67 to 1.05; P=0.13). In patients without ST segment elevation, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 253 (15.9%) assigned to bivalirudin and 262 (16.4%) assigned to heparin (0.97, 0.80 to 1.17; P=0.74), whereas net adverse clinical events occurred in 262 (16.5%) patients assigned to bivalirudin and 281 (17.6%) assigned to heparin (0.93, 0.77 to 1.12; P=0.43). Conclusions A bivalirudin monotherapy strategy compared with heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, did not result in reduced major adverse cardiovascular events or net adverse clinical events in patients with or without ST segment elevation. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01433627.

Acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale of the AKI-MATRIX (acute kidney injury-minimizing adverse hemorrhagic events by TRansradial access site and systemic implementation of angioX) sub-study

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is an important complication of both diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A large body of evidence supports that AKI is related to volume of contrast used. Despite several measures are available to reduce the impact of contrast media on AKI, its incidence remains significant as other mechanisms of renal damage are involved. A new paradigm is established according to which bleeding prevention is at least as important as preventing recurrent ischemic events in the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing an invasive approach. Periprocedural bleeding, which is consistently reduced by radial approach, is emerging as a risk factor for the development of AKI. Therefore, the role of vascular access as a measure to prevent AKI needs to be systematically assessed in randomized studies. To date, no prospective comparison on renal outcomes has been carried out in randomized trials between radial and femoral approach. The Minimizing Adverse hemorrhagic events by TRansradial access site and systemic Implementation of AngioX (MATRIX) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01433627) has been designed to test whether to minimize bleeding events by using radial access and bivalirudin, across the whole spectrum of patients with ACS undergoing PCI, will result in improved outcomes with respect to both ischemic and bleeding complications. The AKI‐MATRIX sub‐study will provide a unique opportunity to assess whether the advantages of radial approach may even contribute to the reduction of the risk of AKI in patients with ACS.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation

Aims To assess whether radial compared with femoral access is associated with consistent outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Methods and results In the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX (MATRIX) programme patients were randomized to radial or femoral access, stratified by STEMI (2001 radial, 2009 femoral) and NSTE-ACS (2196 radial, 2198 femoral). The 30-day co-primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as MACE or major bleeding In the overall study population, radial access reduced the NACE but not MACE endpoint at the prespecified 0.025 alpha. MACE occurred in 121 (6.1%) STEMI patients with radial access vs. 126 (6.3%) patients with femoral access [rate ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75–1.24; P = 0.76] and in 248 (11.3%) NSTE-ACS patients with radial access vs. 303 (13.9%) with femoral access (RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.67–0.96; P = 0.016) (Pint = 0.25). NACE occurred in 142 (7.2%) STEMI patients with radial access and in 165 (8.3%) patients with femoral access (RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.68–1.08; P = 0.18) and in 268 (12.2%) NSTE-ACS patients with radial access compared with 321 (14.7%) with femoral access (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.69–0.97; P = 0.023) (Pint = 0.76). All-cause mortality and access site-actionable bleeding favoured radial access irrespective of ACS type (Pint = 0.11 and Pint = 0.36, respectively). Conclusion Radial as compared with femoral access provided consistent benefit across the whole spectrum of patients with ACS, without evidence that type of presenting syndrome affected the results of the random access allocation.

Determinants of radiation dose during right transradial access: Insights from the RAD-MATRIX study.

Background The RAD‐MATRIX trial reported a large operator radiation exposure variability in right radial percutaneous coronary procedures. The reasons of these differences are not well understood. Our aim was to appraise the determinants of operator radiation exposure during coronary right transradial procedures. Methods Patient arrangement during transradial intervention was investigated across operators involved in the RAD‐MATRIX trial. Operator radiation exposure was analyzed according to the position of the patient right arm (close or far from the body) and in relation to the size of the upper leaded glass. Results Among the 14 operators who agreed to participate, there was a greater than 10‐fold difference in radiation dose at thorax level (from 21.5 to 267 &mgr;Sv) that persisted after normalization by dose‐area product (from 0.35 to 3.5 &mgr;Sv/Gy*cm2). Among the operators who positioned the instrumented right arm far from the body (110.4 &mgr;Sv, interquartile range 71.5‐146.5 &mgr;Sv), thorax dose was greater than that in those who placed the instrumented arm close to the right leg (46.1 &mgr;Sv, 31.3‐56.8 &mgr;Sv, P = .02). This difference persisted after normalization by dose‐area product (P = .028). The use of a smaller full glass shield was also associated with a higher radiation exposure compared with a larger composite shield (147.5 and 60 &mgr;Sv, respectively, P = .016). Conclusions In the context of the biggest radiation study conducted in patients undergoing transradial catheterization, the instrumented right arm arrangement close to the leg and greater upper leaded shield dimensions were associated with a lower operator radiation exposure. Our findings emphasize the importance of implementing simple preventive measures to mitigate the extra risks of radiation exposure with right radial as compared with femoral access. Graphical abstract Figure. No caption available.