Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bleeding Complications After PCI and the Role of Transradial Access

  • Coronary Artery Disease (D Feldman, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

Bleeding events are the most common complications following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are associated with increases in short- and long-term mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, hospital length of stay, and hospital cost. Over time, there has been a decrease in periprocedural bleeding, primarily due to improvements in antithrombotic therapy; however, transradial (TR) catheterization has been shown to be an important strategy to minimize access site bleeding and potentially improve outcomes among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The rate of TR catheterization has been increasing significantly over the past few years and now accounts for an increasing proportion of procedures performed in the United States. Results from the recently published RIVAL Trial have shown comparable efficacy between transradial and transfemoral (TF) approaches with significant reduction in vascular access complications in the TR group. TR access in the STEMI population was prospectively assessed in the RIFLE-STEACS Trial and demonstrated significant reduction in the primary outcome of composite death/MI/stroke/target vessel revascularization/non-CABG bleeding. More recent studies have also demonstrated cost savings with TR access, related primarily to decreased hospital length of stay. While previous studies have shown increased operator radiation exposure compared to a TF approach, the most recent data suggest no significant difference in radiation at higher volume centers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:• Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Go AS et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127(1):e6–e245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rao SV et al. The transradial approach to percutaneous coronary intervention: historical perspective, current concepts, and future directions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(20):2187–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Batchelor WB et al. Contemporary outcome trends in the elderly undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: results in 7,472 octogenarians. National Cardiovascular Network Collaboration. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(3):723–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kinnaird TD et al. Incidence, predictors, and prognostic implications of bleeding and blood transfusion following percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92(8):930–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lauer MA et al. Practice patterns and outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in the United States: 1995 to 1997. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89(8):924–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Popma JJ et al. Vascular complications after balloon and new device angioplasty. Circulation. 1993;88(4 Pt 1):1569–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Manoukian SV et al. Impact of major bleeding on 30-day mortality and clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes: an analysis from the ACUITY Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(12):1362–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pinto DS et al. Economic evaluation of bivalirudin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition versus heparin with routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition for early invasive management of acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(22):1758–68.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Aronow HD et al. Predictors of length of stay after coronary stenting. Am Heart J. 2001;142(5):799–805.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen DJ et al. Economic evaluation of bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibition versus heparin with routine glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibition for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the REPLACE-2 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(9):1792–800.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lopes RD et al. Advanced age, antithrombotic strategy, and bleeding in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(12):1021–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nathan S, Rao SV. Radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention: implications for vascular complications and bleeding. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2012;14(4):502–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Doyle BJ et al. Major femoral bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary intervention: incidence, predictors, and impact on long-term survival among 17,901 patients treated at the Mayo Clinic from 1994 to 2005. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1(2):202–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Feit F et al. Predictors and impact of major hemorrhage on mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention from the REPLACE-2 Trial. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100(9):1364–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kirtane AJ et al. Correlates of bleeding events among moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with eptifibatide: observations from the PROTECT-TIMI-30 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(12):2374–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mehta SK et al. Bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the development of a clinical risk algorithm from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(3):222–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stone GW et al. Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(21):2203–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Subherwal S et al. Temporal trends in and factors associated with bleeding complications among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data CathPCI Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(21):1861–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Vaitkus PT. A meta-analysis of percutaneous vascular closure devices after diagnostic catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol. 2004;16(5):243–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nikolsky E et al. Vascular complications associated with arteriotomy closure devices in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(6):1200–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marso SP et al. Association between use of bleeding avoidance strategies and risk of periprocedural bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2010;303(21):2156–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Campeau L. Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1989;16(1):3–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Otaki M. Percutaneous transradial approach for coronary angiography. Cardiology. 1992;81(6):330–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ. Percutaneous transradial artery approach for coronary Palmaz-Schatz stent implantation. Am Heart J. 1994;128(1):167–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, de Melker E. Transradial artery coronary angioplasty. Am Heart J. 1995;129(1):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lotan C et al. Transradial approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1995;76(3):164–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Feldman DN et al. Adoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007-2012). Circulation. 2013;127(23):2295–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jolly SS et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9775):1409–20. The RIVAL Trial is the largest randomized trial comparing the transfemoral and transradial approaches to catheterization.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mehta SR et al. Effects of radial versus femoral artery access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(24):2490–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Romagnoli E et al. Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(24):2481–9. The RIFLE-STEACS is one of the largest trials specifically looking at the use of transradial access in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stone GW et al. Bivalirudin during Primary PCI in Acute Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(21):2218–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Baklanov DV et al. The prevalence and outcomes of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: analysis from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (2007 to 2011). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(4):420–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mitchell MD et al. Systematic review and cost-benefit analysis of radial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5(4):454–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Applegate R, et al. Cost effectiveness of radial access for diagnostic cardiac catheterization and coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(4):E375–84.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Safley DM et al. Comparison of costs between transradial and transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention: a cohort analysis from the Premier research database. Am Heart J. 2013;165(3):303–9 e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Amin AP, et al. Costs of Transradial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(8):827–34. This is a retrospective study assessing cost differences between transradial and transfemoral access, describing the potential costs savings from transradial access, predominantly due to a shorter length of stay.

  37. Rao SV, Patel MR. The Value Proposition in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2013;6(8):835–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McGrath PD et al. RElation between operator and hospital volume and outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of the coronary stent. JAMA. 2000;284(24):3139–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Jolly SS et al. Effect of radial versus femoral access on radiation dose and the importance of procedural volume: a substudy of the multicenter randomized RIVAL trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(3):258–66. This is a good study assessing the importance of operator volume on radiation exposure during TR catheterization.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lo TS et al. Impact of access site selection and operator expertise on radiation exposure; a controlled prospective study. Am Heart J. 2012;164(4):455–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ball WT et al. Characterization of operator learning curve for transradial coronary interventions. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(4):336–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Spaulding C et al. Left radial approach for coronary angiography: results of a prospective study. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1996;39(4):365–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Rao SV, Krucoff MW. Radial first: paradox + proficiency = opportunity. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(3):e000281.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Amit N. Vora declares no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Dr. Sunil V. Rao reports consulting (modest) from The Medicines Company.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA

    Amit N. Vora MD, MPH & Sunil V. Rao MD

Authors
  1. Amit N. Vora MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sunil V. Rao MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amit N. Vora MD, MPH.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Coronary Artery Disease

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vora, A.N., Rao, S.V. Bleeding Complications After PCI and the Role of Transradial Access. Curr Treat Options Cardio Med 16, 305 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-014-0305-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-014-0305-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation