• J Am Heart Assoc · Jun 2016

    Comparative Study

    Relationship Between Arterial Access and Outcomes in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With a Pharmacoinvasive Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategy: Insights From the STrategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial Infarction (STREAM) Study.

    • Jay Shavadia, Robert Welsh, Anthony Gershlick, Yinggan Zheng, Kurt Huber, Sigrun Halvorsen, Phillipe G Steg, Frans Van de Werf, and Paul W Armstrong.
    • Canadian VIGOUR Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
    • J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jun 13; 5 (6).

    BackgroundThe effectiveness of radial access (RA) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been predominantly established in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) with limited exploration of this issue in the early postfibrinolytic patient. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of RA versus femoral (FA) access in STEMI undergoing either a pharmacoinvasive (PI) strategy or pPCI.Methods And ResultsWithin STrategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial Infarction (STREAM), we evaluated the relationship between arterial access site and primary outcome (30-day composite of death, shock, congestive heart failure, or reinfarction) and major bleeding according to the treatment strategy received. A total of 1820 STEMI patients were included: 895 PI (49.2%; rescue PCI [n=379; 42.3%], scheduled PCI [n=516; 57.7%]) and 925 pPCI (50.8%). Irrespective of treatment strategy, there was comparable utilization of either access site (FA: PI 53.4% and pPCI 57.6%). FA STEMI patients were younger, had lower presenting systolic blood pressure, lesser Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction risk, and more ∑ST-elevation at baseline. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 8.9% RA versus 15.7% FA patients (P<0.001). On multivariable analysis, this benefit on the primary composite outcome favoring RA persisted (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.78; P<0.001) and was evident in both pPCI (adjusted OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.92) and PI cohorts (adjusted OR, 0.57 95% CI, 0.37-0.86; P interaction=0.730). There was no difference in nonintracranial major bleeding with either access group (RA vs FA, 5.2% vs 6.0%; P=0.489).ConclusionsRegardless of the application of a PI or pPCI strategy, RA was associated with improved clinical outcomes, supporting current STEMI evidence in favor of RA in PCI.Clinical Trial RegistrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00623623.© 2016 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…