Procedural volume and outcomes with radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 18;63(10):954-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.10.052. Epub 2013 Nov 21.

Abstract

Objectives: The study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach.

Background: RIVAL (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.

Methods: In 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.

Results: In 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).

Conclusions: Procedural 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).

Keywords: acute coronary syndrome(s); femoral access; percutaneous coronary intervention; procedural volume; radial access.

Publication types

  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Acute Coronary Syndrome / diagnostic imaging*
  • Acute Coronary Syndrome / surgery*
  • Aged
  • Catheterization, Peripheral / methods
  • Catheterization, Peripheral / statistics & numerical data*
  • Coronary Angiography / methods
  • Coronary Angiography / statistics & numerical data*
  • Female
  • Femoral Artery
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention / methods*
  • Prognosis
  • Radial Artery

Associated data

  • ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT01014273