Comparison of trans-radial access and femoral access in cardiogenic shock patient who had undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention from SMART RESCUE trial

Abstract Introduction Throughout the years of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the debate regarding access route, whether it being trasns-radial or femoral, is an ongoing agenda yet to be solved. Recent guidelines suggest trans-radial approach as an option to be considered in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, data on cardiogenic shock patients undergoing PCI is relatively sparse. Purpose Compare the clinical implication of trans-radial and femoral approach in cardiogenic shock patients who had undergone PCI. Method Cardiogenic shock patients who had undergone PCI from January 2014 to December of 2018 were enrolled. Patients were divided according to their access route respectfully. Primary outcome was composite endpoints including all-cause death, re-admission due to heart failure, myocardial infarction (MI) and cerebrovascular accident. Result A total of 694 (572 via femoral approach, 122 via radial approach) cardiogenic shock patients who received PCI were enrolled. Mean age femoral and radial groups was 66.59±12.51 and 66.66±12.8 respectfully. Disease severity was higher for femoral patients compared to radial patients as represented by their LM involvement, mechanical organ support (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and vasoactive inotropic score. Cox regression analysis after adjusting for conventional risk factors showed that femoral route was a poor prognosticator with respect to composite endpoints (HR=2.059, 95% CI 1.249–3.397, p value = 0.005). Radial approach patients had higher survival probability compared to femoral approach patients (Figure 1). Conclusion Radial approach in cardiogenic shock patients who are in need for PCI with relatively less severe clinical condition could be a reasonable option for access route. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Inha University Hospital