Trans-Radial Approach for STEMI • Evolution of TRA in single center • Rationale behind increased TRA use • Progression to use in STEMI • Data analysis of STEMI DTB times • Rationale for a Randomized Trial
Jan 02, 2016
Trans-Radial Approach for STEMI
• Evolution of TRA in single center
• Rationale behind increased TRA use
• Progression to use in STEMI
• Data analysis of STEMI DTB times
• Rationale for a Randomized Trial
Brief History of TRA @ Lahey• 95 – 03: Must only
• 2004: Single operator “ramp – up”
• 2005 – 07: Mostly single operator
• 2008 - : Broad operator application with routine STEMI use
Factors behind TRA “Boom”
• Patient preference for a more comfortable procedure
• Literature supporting less bleeding and possibly improved outcomes
• Improved technical proficiency allowing application of procedure to a wide subset of patients with high success rates
Rationale for TRA for ACS and MI
• ACS and STEMI patients are frequently aggressively anti-coagulated with high rates of access site bleeding
• Access site bleeding is an independent predictor of mortality in ACS
• TRA lowers access site bleeding rates
log rank p-value for all four categories <0.0001log-rank p-value for no bleeding vs. mild bleeding = 0.02log-rank p-value for mild vs. moderate bleeding <0.0001log-rank p-value for moderate vs. severe <0.001
Bleeding & OutcomesBleeding & OutcomesN=26,452 pts from PURSUIT, GUSTO IIb, PARAGON A & BN=26,452 pts from PURSUIT, GUSTO IIb, PARAGON A & B
Rao SV, et al. Rao SV, et al. Am J CardiolAm J Cardiol. 2005. 2005Rao SV, et al. Rao SV, et al. Am J CardiolAm J Cardiol. 2005. 2005
Kaplan Meier Curves for 30-Day Death, Stratified by Bleed SeverityKaplan Meier Curves for 30-Day Death, Stratified by Bleed Severity
Bleeding rates reduced with Bivalirudin, but are still 5% in STEMI
Stone G, et al, NEJM 2008;358 : 2218 - 30
TRI reduces access site complications and bleeding results
Cantor WJ, et al, CCI 69:73-83 (2007)
Procedural factors affecting major bleeding in the Synergy trial (UFH vs. Enoxaparin in ACS – non STEMI)
Prevalence of radial approach in the US
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-9.9 10-19.9 20-29.9 30-39.9 > 40%
% r-PCI
% H
os
pit
als
N = 593,094 PCI procedures 2004-2007N = 593,094 PCI procedures 2004-2007 606 sites606 sites1.3% of all PCI procedures1.3% of all PCI procedures
Rao SV, et. al. SV, et. al. JACC: CI 2008JACC: CI 2008
Limitations to TRA in STEMI
• Most centers have no formal TRA program
• Operators fear technical failure
• Operators assume even successful TRA will be slower than the trans-femoral approach for STEMI
Data on TRI for STEMI
• Most Data is Single Center Registry
• No Multi – Center randomized trials exist comparing the management of STEMI with Trans – Radial vs. Trans – Femoral approach.
Hetherington et al. reviewed 4 years of STEMI at a lab of both high volume radial and femoral
approach operators.
• Approach determined by physician preference
• Initially most radial cases done by single physician
• More physicians adopted the radial approach with time
Hetherington et al. Heart Online, July 2009
Similar Procedure Times. Higher Access Failures With TRA
Hetherington et al. Heart Online, July 2009
• Contrast and Radiation dose less in the radial group
• Length of stay less in the radial group
Hetherington et al. Heart Online, July 2009
Lahey Clinic Experience with Radial Access for STEMI
• Reviewed 103 consecutive STEMI cases managed with radial access
• Divided Radial cases into early experience (n=32) and late experience (n=71).
• Compared early and late radial experience• Compared late experience to 2008 femoral
“controls” (n=166)
Lahey TRA times similar to Tran-femoral approach for STEMI
Radial failureRate: 3%
Future Directions in TRI Research
• Rao et al. Initiating Multi – Center Registry to examine the effect of TRI on bleeding in wide spectrum of patients and anti-coagulation regiments
• Pyne, Jeon et al. Initiating a multi-center randomized clinical trial comparing TRI vs. femoral approach for the management of STEMI
Randomized TRA vs. TFA is needed
• Can TRA be done for STEMI with a high success rate with good PCI results ?
• Can TRA be done quickly enough to compare to TFA for D2B ?
• Does TRA decrease bleeding in STEMI ?
• Are MACE rates improved using the radial approach ?
Multi – Center RTC comparing TRI to Femoral for the management of STEMI
• 8 – 10 centers enrolling 600 STEMI patients randomized to TRI vs. Femoral with standardized anti-coagulation protocols.
• Primary endpoints: Procedural time and Bleeding rates
• Secondary endpoint: MACE
Conclusions
• Bleeding confers a significant morbidity in ACS and is reduced with TRI.
• Single center experiences demonstrate good procedural success with favorable room times.
• RCT trial is necessary to truly evaluate TRI in STEMI.