Comparison of Safety of RADial comPRESSion Devices: A Multi-Center Trial of Patent Hemostasis following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention from Conventional Radial Access (RAD-PRESS Trial)

Although radial access is the current gold standard for the implementation of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), post-procedural radial compression devices are seldom compared with each other in terms of safety or efficacy. Our group aimed to compare a cost effective and potentially green method to dedicated radial compression devices, with respect to access site complications combined in a device oriented complex endpoint (DOCE), freedom from which served as our primary endpoint. Patients undergoing PCI were randomized to receive either the cost effective or a dedicated device, either of which were removed using patent hemostasis. Twenty-four hours after the procedure, radial artery ultrasonography was performed to evaluate the access site. The primary endpoint was assessed using a non-inferiority framework with a non-inferiority margin of five percentage points, which was considered as the least clinically meaningful difference. The cost-effective technique and the dedicated devices were associated with a comparably low rate of complications (freedom from DOCE: 83.3% vs. 70.8%, absolute risk difference: 12.5%, one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11%). Composition of the DOCE (i.e., no complication, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, and radial artery occlusion) and compression time were also assessed in superiority tests as secondary endpoints. Both the cost-effective technique and the dedicated devices were associated with comparably low rates of complications: p = 0.1289. All radial compression devices performed similarly when considering the time to complete removal of the respective device (120.0 (inter-quartile range: 100.0–142.5) for the vial vs. 120.0 (inter-quartile range: 110.0–180) for the dedicated device arm, with a median difference of [95% CI]: 7.0 [−23.11 to 2.00] min, p = 0.2816). In conclusion, our cost-effective method was found to be non-inferior to the dedicated devices with respect to safety, therefore it is a safe alternative to dedicated radial compression devices, as well as seeming to be similarly effective

Comparison of Safety of RADial comPRESSion Devices: A Multi-Center Trial of Patent Hemostasis following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention from Conventional Radial Access (RAD-PRESS Trial)

Although radial access is the current gold standard for the implementation of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), post-procedural radial compression devices are seldom compared with each other in terms of safety or efficacy. Our group aimed to compare a cost effective and potentially green method to dedicated radial compression devices, with respect to access site complications combined in a device oriented complex endpoint (DOCE), freedom from which served as our primary endpoint. Patients undergoing PCI were randomized to receive either the cost effective or a dedicated device, either of which were removed using patent hemostasis. Twenty-four hours after the procedure, radial artery ultrasonography was performed to evaluate the access site. The primary endpoint was assessed using a non-inferiority framework with a non-inferiority margin of five percentage points, which was considered as the least clinically meaningful difference. The cost-effective technique and the dedicated devices were associated with a comparably low rate of complications (freedom from DOCE: 83.3% vs. 70.8%, absolute risk difference: 12.5%, one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11%). Composition of the DOCE (i.e., no complication, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, and radial artery occlusion) and compression time were also assessed in superiority tests as secondary endpoints. Both the cost-effective technique and the dedicated devices were associated with comparably low rates of complications: p = 0.1289. All radial compression devices performed similarly when considering the time to complete removal of the respective device (120.0 (inter-quartile range: 100.0–142.5) for the vial vs. 120.0 (inter-quartile range: 110.0–180) for the dedicated device arm, with a median difference of [95% CI]: 7.0 [−23.11 to 2.00] min, p = 0.2816). In conclusion, our cost-effective method was found to be non-inferior to the dedicated devices with respect to safety, therefore it is a safe alternative to dedicated radial compression devices, as well as seeming to be similarly effective

Reperfusion therapies and in-hospital outcomes for ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Europe: The ACVC-EAPCI EORP STEMI Registry of the European Society of Cardiology

Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the contemporary use of reperfusion therapy in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member and affiliated countries and adherence to ESC clinical practice guidelines in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods and results: Prospective cohort (EURObservational Research Programme STEMI Registry) of hospitalized STEMI patients with symptom onset <24 h in 196 centres across 29 countries. A total of 11 462 patients were enrolled, for whom primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (total cohort frequency: 72.2%, country frequency range 0-100%), fibrinolysis (18.8%; 0-100%), and no reperfusion therapy (9.0%; 0-75%) were performed. Corresponding in-hospital mortality rates from any cause were 3.1%, 4.4%, and 14.1% and overall mortality was 4.4% (country range 2.5-5.9%). Achievement of quality indicators for reperfusion was reported for 92.7% (region range 84.8-97.5%) for the performance of reperfusion therapy of all patients with STEMI <12 h and 54.4% (region range 37.1-70.1%) for timely reperfusion. Conclusions: The use of reperfusion therapy for STEMI in the ESC member and affiliated countries was high. Primary PCI was the most frequently used treatment and associated total in-hospital mortality was below 5%. However, there was geographic variation in the use of primary PCI, which was associated with differences in in-hospital mortality

The ESC ACCA EAPCI EORP acute coronary syndrome ST-elevation myocardial infarction registry

Aims: The Acute Cardiac Care Association (ACCA)-European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (EAPCI) Registry on ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) of the EurObservational programme (EORP) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) registry aimed to determine the current state of the use of reperfusion therapy in ESC member and ESC affiliated countries and the adherence to ESC STEMI guidelines in patients with STEMI. Methods and results: Between 1 January 2015 and 31 March 2018, a total of 11 462 patients admitted with an initial diagnosis of STEMI according to the 2012 ESC STEMI guidelines were enrolled. Individual patient data were collected across 196 centres and 29 countries. Among the centres, there were 136 percutaneous coronary intervention centres and 91 with cardiac surgery on-site. The majority of centres (129/196) were part of a STEMI network. The main objective of this study was to describe the demographic, clinical, and angiographic characteristics of patients with STEMI. Other objectives include to assess management patterns and in particular the current use of reperfusion therapies and to evaluate how recommendations of most recent STEMI European guidelines regarding reperfusion therapies and adjunctive pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are adopted in clinical practice and how their application can impact on patients' outcomes. Patients will be followed for 1 year after admission. Conclusion: The ESC ACCA-EAPCI EORP ACS STEMI registry is an international registry of care and outcomes of patients hospitalized with STEMI. It will provide insights into the contemporary patient profile, management patterns, and 1-year outcome of patients with STEMI

Cohort profile: the ESC EURObservational Research Programme Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infraction (NSTEMI) Registry

Aims The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) EURObservational Research Programme (EORP) Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) Registry aims to identify international patterns in NSTEMI management in clinical practice and outcomes against the 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without ST-segment-elevation. Methods and results Consecutively hospitalised adult NSTEMI patients (n = 3620) were enrolled between 11 March 2019 and 6 March 2021, and individual patient data prospectively collected at 287 centres in 59 participating countries during a two-week enrolment period per centre. The registry collected data relating to baseline characteristics, major outcomes (inhospital death, acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, bleeding, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, and 30-day mortality) and guideline-recommended NSTEMI care interventions: electrocardiogram pre- or in-hospital, prehospitalization receipt of aspirin, echocardiography, coronary angiography, referral to cardiac rehabilitation, smoking cessation advice, dietary advice, and prescription on discharge of aspirin, P2Y12 inhibition, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), beta-blocker, and statin. Conclusion The EORP NSTEMI Registry is an international, prospective registry of care and outcomes of patients treated for NSTEMI, which will provide unique insights into the contemporary management of hospitalised NSTEMI patients, compliance with ESC 2015 NSTEMI Guidelines, and identify potential barriers to optimal management of this common clinical presentation associated with significant morbidity and mortality