• Sanjit S Jolly, John Cairns, Salim Yusuf, Kari Niemela, Philippe Gabriel Steg, Matthew Worthley, Emile Ferrari, Warren J Cantor, Anthony Fung, Nicholas Valettas, Michael Rokoss, Goran K Olivecrona, Petr Widimsky, Asim N Cheema, Peggy Gao, Shamir R Mehta, and RIVAL Investigators.
• McMaster University and Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: sanjit.jolly@phri.ca.
• J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014 Mar 18;63(10):954-63.

ObjectivesThe study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach.BackgroundRIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) was a randomized trial of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention (N = 7,021), which overall did not show a difference in primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding.MethodsIn pre-specified subgroup analyses, the hazard ratios for the primary outcome were compared among centers divided by tertiles and among individual operators. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent effect of center and operator volumes after adjusting for other variables.ResultsIn high-volume radial centers, the primary outcome was reduced with radial versus femoral access (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.87) but not in intermediate- (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.72) or low-volume centers (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.31; interaction p = 0.021). High-volume centers enrolled a higher proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). After adjustment for STEMI, the benefit of radial access persisted at high-volume radial centers. There was no difference in the primary outcome between radial and femoral access by operator volume: high-volume operators (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.28), intermediate (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27), and low (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; interaction p = 0.536). However, in a multivariable model, overall center volume and radial center volume were independently associated with the primary outcome but not femoral center volume (overall percutaneous coronary intervention volume HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96; radial volume HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97; and femoral volume HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07; p = 0.98).ConclusionsProcedural volume and expertise are important, particularly for radial percutaneous coronary intervention. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273).Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

24 keywords...

hide…