Transfemoral approach with systematic use of FemoSeal™ closure device compared to transradial approach in primary angioplasty
Conflict of interest: Nothing to report.
Abstract
Objectives
To compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) bleedings in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) performed through transradial approach (TRA) or transfemoral approach (TFA) with systematic closure by FemoSeal™.
Background
Although the risk of bleeding can be reduced using vascular closure devices (VCD), there are few data comparing TRA and TFA with VCD, particularly in the setting of pPCI.
Methods
we included in this retrospective registry 777 patients who underwent pPCI at two centers from years 2010 to 2013. Exclusion criteria were implantation of intra-aortic balloon pump and achievement of femoral hemostasis by other means than FemoSeal™. We performed propensity-score matching and multivariate analysis to adjust for clinical and procedural confounders.
Results
We enrolled 511 patients in TRA group and 266 in TFA group. Both in the general population and in the propensity-matched population, the incidence of MACCE was comparable in TRA vs. TFA patients (3.5 vs. 3.4% and 4.4 vs. 2.6%, respectively; P = ns). On the contrary, we observed a higher incidence of TIMI bleedings in TFA vs. TRA patients (5.6 vs. 2.2% in the general population and 6.6 vs. 1.3% in the propensity-matched population; P < 0.05); this difference was mainly driven by TIMI major bleedings. TFA was an independent predictor of bleeding at multivariate analysis.
Conclusions
In pPCI the rate of TIMI major bleedings was higher in TFA with closure by FemoSeal™ as compared to TRA, whereas the rates of minor bleedings and of MACCE were similar. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
