No abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

No abstract

Since its introduction in 1977, percutaneous coronary intervention has become one of the most commonly performed therapeutic procedures worldwide. Such widespread diffusion, however, would have not been possible without a concomitant evolution of the pharmacotherapies associated with this intervention. Antithrombotic agents are fundamental throughout the management of patients undergoing coronary stent implantation, starting from the procedure itself to the long-term prevention of cardiovascular events. The last 40 years of interventional cardiology have seen remarkable improvements in both drug therapies and device technologies, which largely reflected a progressive understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms of coronary artery disease, as well as procedure- and device-related adverse events. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the important milestones in antithrombotic pharmacology that have shaped clinical practice of today while also providing insights into knowledge gaps and future directions.

Objective It is still debated if benefits associated with radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are due to the access site selection itself, operator expertise or other underlying mechanisms. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and meeting abstracts for randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access site for coronary angiography and PCI. Primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were stroke and myocardial infarction (MI). This study is registered with PROSPERO. Results We identified 31 trials (30,096 patients, PCI performed in 21,225 patients). Radial compared to femoral access was associated with a significant risk reduction in major bleeding (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.42–0.66, I2 = 3.3%). Findings were consistent regardless of clinical characteristics or whether coronary angiography was performed with or without PCI. The benefit of radial access was significantly increased in studies published before 2010 and in patients with chronic coronary syndrome. Risk for stroke (OR 1.11, 95%CI 0.76–1.64, I2 = 0%) and MI (OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.79–1.04, I2 = 0%) were comparable between the groups. Risk for mortality and vascular complications were significantly lower with radial than femoral access. Conclusion In patients undergoing coronary angiography and PCI, radial access is associated with a significant risk reduction in bleeding, vascular complications, and mortality compared to femoral access. The risk of stroke or MI were comparable in patients with radial or femoral access.