• Sanjit S Jolly, Kari Niemelä, Denis Xavier, Petr Widimsky, Andrzej Budaj, Vicent Valentin, Basil S Lewis, Alvaro Avezum, Philippe Gabriel Steg, Sunil V Rao, John Cairns, Susan Chrolavicius, Salim Yusuf, and Shamir R Mehta.
• McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. jollyss@mcmaster.ca
• Am. Heart J. 2011 Feb 1;161(2):254-260.e1-4.

BackgroundMajor bleeding in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is associated with an increased risk of subsequent mortality and recurrent ischemic events. Observational data and small randomized trials suggest that radial instead of femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention results in fewer bleeding complications, with preserved and possibly improved efficacy. Radial access versus femoral access has yet to be formally evaluated in a randomized trial adequately powered for the comparison of clinically important outcomes.ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention in patients with ACS managed with an invasive strategy.DesignThis was a multicenter international randomized trial with blinded assessment of outcomes. 7021 patients with ACS (with or without ST elevation) have been randomized to either radial or femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention. The primary outcome is the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding up to day 30. The key secondary outcomes are (1) death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to day 30 and (2) non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding up to day 30. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) success rates will also be compared between the two access sites.ConclusionsThe RIVAL trial will help define the optimal access site for coronary angiography/intervention in patients with ACS.Copyright © 2011 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

10 keywords...

hide…