Clinical Outcomes of Transradial Versus Transfemoral Approach in Rotational Atherectomy: Results from the Rotational Atherectomy in Calcified Lesions in Korea (ROCK) Registry

TL;DR

This study compares the clinical outcomes of using the radial versus femoral approach for rotational atherectomy in treating calcified coronary lesions.

Contribution

The study provides new real-world evidence comparing vascular access approaches for rotational atherectomy in calcified coronary lesions.

Findings

No significant difference in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events between transradial and transfemoral approaches.

Transradial approach showed a trend toward fewer bleeding events, though not statistically significant.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Rotational atherectomy (RA) is a crucial method for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of heavily calcified coronary lesions. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing RA via the radial versus femoral approach. Methods: The Rotational Atherectomy in Calcified Lesions in Korea (ROCK) registry included consecutive patients with severely calcified coronary artery disease who received RA during PCI at nine tertiary centers in Korea. A total of 540 patients who underwent PCI with RA were enrolled between October 2019 and January 2010. We retrospectively investigated the clinical outcomes between the transradial and transfemoral approaches. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) within 36 months of follow-up. Results: Of the 540 patients, 248 patients (45.9%) were in the transradial group, and 292 patients (54.1%) were in the transfemoral group. There were no significant differences in MACCE (11.3% vs. 17.8%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.520; 95% confidence interval: 0.889–2.600; p = 0.126) and procedural success (97.6% vs. 95.2%, p = 0.145). The occurrence of in-hospital bleeding was numerically higher in the transfemoral group, but the difference was not statistically significant (8 [3.2%] vs. 19 [6.5%], p = 0.081) Conclusions: In this study, the transradial approach did not show a significant difference in clinical outcomes but tended to have lower bleeding events compared to the transfemoral approach. RA via the transradial approach can be a useful vascular access option compared to the transfemoral approach.

Figures