Rao, Sunil V

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing radial and femoral access report access site crossover rates of 3% to 9% for radial access and 1% to 3% for femoral access. However, contemporary real-world crossover rates are not well characterized. The aim was to evaluate contemporary trends and predictors of vascular access site crossover during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We analyzed index PCI procedures recorded in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from 2018 to 2024. Access site crossover was identified using documented access data, with radial-to-femoral crossover inferred when the final successful access site was femoral. Temporal trends and clinical predictors of crossover were examined. Operator experience was assessed using cumulative total and radial PCI volumes from 2011 to 2024 as captured in CathPCI Registry versions 4 and 5. RESULTS: Among 3 861 790 index PCIs, 192 902 (5.0%) involved access site crossover, with a modest increase over time. Radial-to-femoral crossover accounted for 81.2% of crossover events. Factors independently associated with crossover included older age, female sex, higher body mass index, and peripheral vascular disease. Operators with the lowest total PCI volume and the lowest radial PCI volume experienced the highest crossover rates. Notably, operators with low radial PCI volume demonstrated a substantial decline in radial-to-femoral crossover over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary clinical practice, access site crossover rates are consistent with those reported in randomized trials. Although crossover occurs more frequently among lower-volume operators, rates decline with increasing operator experience, supporting the presence of a radial access learning curve and improvement in procedural performance over time.

Background A contemporary, comprehensive risk score for the prediction of in‐hospital fatal and nonfatal adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention has been recently developed, albeit its external validation in patients with acute coronary syndrome is lacking. The objective of this study is to validate the Mayo Clinic integer risk score in a large cohort of patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox) trial. Methods The risk score is composed of a common set of 23 clinical and procedural variables (model A) and 18 preprocedural variables (model B). The primary objective was to appraise the receiver‐operator characteristics of both models for in‐hospital mortality, bleeding, contrast‐associated acute kidney injury, and stroke. The impact of risk score categories on 1‐year outcomes was also investigated. Results Among the 6724 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the MATRIX trial, the receiver‐operator characteristics—area under the curves for in‐hospital mortality, bleeding, contrast‐associated acute kidney injury, and stroke were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85–0.91), 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63–0.69), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.67–0.72), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.52–0.78) for model A and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84–0.92), 0.63 (95% CI, 0.60–0.66), 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63–0.69), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.52–0.78) for model B, respectively. Mortality (model A), bleeding, and stroke risks were well calibrated, whereas mortality (model B) and contrast‐associated acute kidney injury risk were underestimated. There was a gradual risk increase for 1‐year mortality and bleeding as a function of the risk score tertile using both models. Conclusions The risk score identifies patients with acute coronary syndrome at incremental risk of in‐hospital mortality, bleeding, contrast‐associated acute kidney injury, and stroke, representing a valuable tool for mitigation of modifiable risk factors. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifier: NCT01433627.

Background Optimal duration and choice of antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remain controversial. Methods and Results Digital databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase) were queried to select all randomized controlled trials on a post–percutaneous coronary intervention population with acute coronary syndrome. Dual‐antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel for 12 months was compared with 4 major strategies: high‐potency, high‐ to low‐potency, low‐dose, and short‐duration DAPT. A network meta‐analysis was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of different antiplatelet strategies. This study was the second updated manuscript under the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration (CRD42021286552). Thirty‐two randomized controlled trials comprising 103 459 (51 750 experimental, 51 709 control) patients were included. Compared with DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel for 12 months, high‐ to low‐potency DAPT (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52–0.92]) and aspirin+prasugrel containing DAPT for 12 months (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72–0.98]) had a significantly lower, whereas DAPT for 1 month followed by clopidogrel only (RR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.06–2.39]) had a higher, incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year (median follow‐up). Prasugrel (RR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.09–1.66]) and ticagrelor (RR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.17–1.62]) containing DAPT for 12 months had significantly higher rates, whereas high‐ to low‐potency DAPT (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63–1.15]) had no significant risk of major bleeding. Conclusions Aspirin and ticagrelor for 3 months, followed by aspirin and clopidogrel for the remaining duration, can be considered the optimal strategy for treating post–percutaneous coronary intervention patients with acute coronary syndrome because of a significantly reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events without increasing the risk of bleeding.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.