Impact of Access Site on Periprocedural Bleeding and Cerebral and Coronary Events in High-Bleeding-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Findings from the RIVA-PCI Trial

The preference for using transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) in patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is based on evidence suggesting that TRA is associated with less bleeding and fewer vascular complications, shorter hospital stays, improved quality of life, and a potential beneficial effect on mortality. We have limited study data comparing the two access routes in a patient population with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PCI, who have a particular increased risk of bleeding, while AF itself is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism.

Using data from the RIVA-PCI registry, which includes patients with AF undergoing PCI, we analyzed a high-bleeding-risk (HBR) cohort. These patients were predominantly on oral anticoagulants (OAC) for AF, and the PCI was performed via radial or femoral access. Endpoints examined were in-hospital bleeding (BARC 2–5), cerebral events (TIA, hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke) and coronary events (stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction).

Out of 1636 patients, 854 (52.2%) underwent TFA, while 782 (47.8%) underwent the procedure via TRA, including nine patients with brachial artery puncture. The mean age was 75.5 years. Groups were similar in terms of age, sex distribution, AF type, cardiovascular history, risk factors, and comorbidities, except for a higher incidence of previous bypass surgeries, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 60 ml/min in the TFA group. No clinically relevant differences in antithrombotic therapy and combinations were present at the time of PCI. However, upon discharge, transradial PCI patients had a higher rate of triple therapy, while dual therapy was preferred after transfemoral procedures. Radial access was more frequently chosen for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina pectoris (UAP) cases (NSTEMI 26.6% vs. 17.0%, p < 0.0001; UAP 21.5% vs. 14.5%, p < 0.001), while femoral access was more common for elective PCI (60.3% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.0001). No differences were observed for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Both groups had similar rates of cerebral events (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p = 0.93), but the TFA group had a higher incidence of bleeding (BARC 2–5) (4.2% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.01), mainly driven by BARC 3 bleeding (1.5% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were found for stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p = 0.93; TFA 0.4% vs. TRA 0.1%, p = 0.36).

In HBR patients with AF undergoing PCI for acute or chronic coronary syndrome, the use of TRA might be associated with a decrease in in-hospital bleeding, while not increasing the risk of embolic or ischemic events compared to femoral access. Further studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.