Abstract
Background:The transradial approach is reportedly associated with reduced bleeding complications and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It is unknown whether the clinical benefits of transradial vs. transfemoral PCI differ between high bleeding risk (HBR) and non-HBR patients.
Methods and Results:After excluding patients with acute myocardial infarction, dialysis, and a transbrachial approach from the 13,087 patients undergoing first PCI in the CREDO-Kyoto Registry Cohort-2, 6,828 patients were eligible for this study. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to bleeding risk based on Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria, and then divided into a further 2 groups according to access site, radial or femoral: HBR-radial, n=1,054 (38.3%); HBR-femoral, n=1,699 (61.7%); non-HBR-radial, n=1,682 (41.3%); and non-HBR-femoral, n=2,393 (58.7%). In the HBR group, the 30-day incidence and adjusted risk for major bleeding (1.9% vs. 4.7% [P<0.001]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26–0.71 [P<0.001]) and all-cause death (0.3% vs. 0.9% [P=0.04]; aHR 0.30, 95% CI 0.07–0.93 [P=0.04]) were significantly lower in the radial than femoral group. There were no significant differences in the 30-day incidence and adjusted risk for major bleeding (0.5% vs. 1.0% [P=0.09]; aHR 0.68, 95% CI 0.30–1.45 [P=0.33]) or all-cause death (0.1% vs. 0.1% [P=0.96]; aHR 1.51, 95% CI 0.19–9.54 [P=0.67]) between the radial and femoral approaches in the non-HBR group.
Conclusions:Compared with transfemoral PCI, transradial PCI was associated with lower risk for 30-day major bleeding and mortality in HBR but not non-HBR patients.
