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

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.

The Effect of Periprocedural Clinical Factors Related to the Course of STEMI in Men and Women Based on the National Registry of Invasive Cardiology Procedures (ORPKI) between 2014 and 2019

Background: There are several sex-related differences in the course, management, and outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study aimed to identify the risk factors that may affect the odds of procedure-related death in patients with STEMI. Methods: The observational cohort study group consisted of 118,601 participants recruited from the National Registry of Invasive Cardiology Procedures (ORPKI). Results: Procedure-related death occurred in 802 (1.0%) men and in 663 (1.7%) women. The odds of procedure-related death among women were significantly higher than among men (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.59–1.95; p < 0.001). The probability of procedure-related mortality was highest in both men and women with cardiac arrest in the cath lab, critical stenosis of the left main coronary artery, and direct transfer to the cath lab. The factors that reduced the probability of procedure-related mortality in both men and women were thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade and the use of P2Y12 inhibitors in the peri-infarct period. Psoriasis was associated with increased odds of procedure-related death among men, whereas cigarette smoking reduced the odds among women. Conclusions: Procedure-related deaths occurred more frequently in women than men with STEMI. Additional scrutiny needs to be undertaken to identify factors influencing survival regarding gender differences.

Structural heart disease interventions

Seed for invasive cardiology was sown in early part of nineties. Cardiac catheterization was actually pioneered by Werner Forssmann in 1929. However, credit for therapeutic interventional cardiology should go to US vascular radiologist, Charles Theodore Dotter for performing first peripheral arterial angioplasty [PTA] in 1964. Subsequently, a German cardiologist by name Andreas Gruentzig adapted the technique in 1974 to suit coronary artery disease and performed the first human coronary balloon angioplasty to treat blockage in coronary artery in 1977.

Comparison of Access Site-Related Complications and Quality of Life in Patients after Invasive Cardiology Procedures According to the Use of Radial, Femoral, or Brachial Approach

The radial approach (RA) is the most common in invasive cardiology, but depending on the clinical situation, the femoral approach (FA) and brachial approach (BA) are also used. The BA is associated with the highest odds of complications so it is used mainly if a first-choice approach fails. The aim of the study was to assess clinical outcomes after invasive cardiology procedures stratified by the use of the RA, FA, and BA, with a focus on access site-related complications, quality of life (QoL), and patients’ perspective. A total of 250 procedures (RA: 98; FA: 99; BA: 53) performed between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Puncture site-related complications, vascular events, patient preferences, and QoL were assessed by the analysis of medical records and telephone follow-up using a proprietary questionnaire and the modified EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. Patients from the RA group received the smallest volume of contrast during a percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) procedure (RA vs. FA vs. BA: 180 (150–240) ml vs. 200 (180–270) ml vs. 190 (100–200) ml, p = 0.045). The access site was changed most frequently in the procedures initiated from the RA (p < 0.04). Overall puncture site-related complications, especially local hematomas, occurred most commonly in the BA group (7.1, 14.1, and 24.5% for RA, FA, and BA, respectively, p = 0.01). During the index procedure, the access site was changed most frequently in procedures initiated from the RA (19.7, 8.5 and 0%, p = 0.04). The RA was indicated as an approach preferred by the patient for a hypothetical next procedure (87.9, 55.4, and 70.0% for subjects preferring the same approach out of patients who underwent a procedure by the RA, FA, and BA, respectively, p < 0.001). For the RA and FA, the prevalence of moderate or extreme access site-related problems in self-care decreased significantly (RA: p < 0.01, FA: p < 0.05) within 1 month after the index procedure (RA: 18.1, 4.2, and 1.4%; FA: 20.7, 11.1, and 9.6% periprocedurally, after 1 and 6 months, respectively). In contrast, for the BA these percentages were higher and a significant improvement (p < 0.05) was delayed until 6 months (54.6, 36.4, and 18.2% periprocedurally, after 1 and 6 months, respectively). In conclusion, compared to the BA and FA, the RA appears to be not only the safest, mainly due to the lowest risk of puncture site-related complications after coronary procedures but also represents a preferable approach from the patient’s perspective. Although overall post-procedural QoL outcomes did not differ significantly according to the access site, nevertheless, the BA was associated with more frequent self-care problems whose improvement was delayed until more than one month after the index procedure.