Objectives: To compare severe complications related to radial access and those related to femoral access using vascular closure devices for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Background: Femoral artery access is still used for acute myocardial infarction management; studies comparing state-of-the-art radial and femoral techniques are required to minimize bias regarding the outcomes associated with operator preferences.
Methods: We performed a randomized study comparing radial access with a compression device and anatomic landmark-guided femoral access with a hemostatic vascular closure device. The severe complication rates related to the access site were assessed until hospital discharge. A meta- analysis including studies with comparable populations reporting severe bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular event rates was performed.
Results: A total of 250 patients were included who underwent PCI between January 2016 and February 2019. Mean age was 61.5 ± 12.2 years, 73.2% were men, and 28.4% had diabetes. There were no differences between groups or in vascular access-related severe complication rates (8.0% for femoral group vs 5.6% for radial group; P=.45). Although radial access was associated with decreased vascular complications related to the access site when compared with the femoral approach (relative risk [RR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.95), the meta-analysis did not show an impact on severe bleeding (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.37-1.46) or severe cardiovascular adverse events (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.30-1.58).
Conclusions: Compliance with femoral artery puncture techniques and routine use of a vascular closure device promoted low severe complication rates.
Keywords: complications; femoral artery; myocardial infarction; radial artery; vascular closure device.