• Pascal Vranckx, Enrico Frigoli, Martina Rothenbühler, Francesco Tomassini, Stefano Garducci, Giuseppe Andò, Andrea Picchi, Paolo Sganzerla, Anita Paggi, Fabrizio Ugo, Arturo Ausiello, Gennaro Sardella, Nicoletta Franco, Marco Nazzaro, Nicoletta de Cesare, Paolo Tosi, Camillo Falcone, Carlo Vigna, Pietro Mazzarotto, Emilio Di Lorenzo, Claudio Moretti, Gianluca Campo, Carlo Penzo, Giampaolo Pasquetto, Dik Heg, Peter Jüni, Stephan Windecker, Marco Valgimigli, and MATRIX Investigators.
• Department of Cardiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hartcentrum Hasselt, Jessa Ziekenhuis, Stadsomvaart 11, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium.
• Eur. Heart J. 2017 Apr 7; 38 (14): 1069-1080.

AimsTo 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 ResultsIn 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).ConclusionRadial 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.Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2017. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

27 keywords...

hide…