Access-Site Crossover in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Management.

Gragnano, Felice; Branca, Mattia; Frigoli, Enrico; Leonardi, Sergio; Vranckx, Pascal; Di Maio, Dario; Monda, Emanuele; Fimiani, Luigi; Fioretti, Vincenzo; Chianese, Salvatore; Esposito, Fabrizio; Franzese, Michele; Scalise, Martina; D'Angelo, Claudio; Scalise, Renato; De Blasi, Gabriele; Andò, Giuseppe; Esposito, Giovanni; Calabrò, Paolo; Windecker, Stephan; ... (2021). Access-Site Crossover in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Management. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions, 14(4), pp. 361-373. Elsevier 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.11.042

	Text Gragnano_JACCCardiovascInterv_2021.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (927kB)
Preview	Text Gragnano_JACCCardiovascInterv_2021_AAM.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND). Download (928kB) | Preview

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of access-site crossover in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management via radial or femoral access.

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the clinical implications of access-site crossover.

METHODS

In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox)-Access trial, 8,404 patients with acute coronary syndrome were randomized to radial or femoral access. Patients undergoing access-site crossover or successful access site were investigated. Thirty-day coprimary outcomes were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and a composite of MACE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding (net adverse clinical events [NACE]).

RESULTS

Access-site crossover occurred in 183 of 4,197 patients (4.4%) in the radial group (mainly to femoral access) and 108 of 4,207 patients (2.6%) in the femoral group (mainly to radial access). In multivariate analysis, the risk for coprimary outcomes was not significantly higher with radial crossover compared with successful radial (MACE: adjusted rate ratio [adjRR]: 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 1.93; p = 0.32; NACE: adjRR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94 to 2.06; p = 0.094) or successful femoral access (MACE: adjRR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.81; p = 0.47; NACE: adjRR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.86; p = 0.24). Access site-related Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding was higher with radial crossover than successful radial access. Femoral crossover remained associated with higher risks for MACE (adjRR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.87; p = 0.007) and NACE (adjRR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.62; p = 0.019) compared with successful femoral access. Results remained consistent after excluding patients with randomized access not attempted.

CONCLUSIONS

Crossover from radial to femoral access abolishes the bleeding benefit offered by the radial over femoral artery but does not appear to increase the risk for MACE or NACE compared with successful radial or femoral access. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).

Interest & Impact

Downloads

10 since deposited on 15 Mar 2021
6 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item