Canadian Journal of Cardiology

Radial versus femoral access in ACS patients undergoing complex PCI is associated with consistent bleeding benefit and no excess of risks

      ABSTRACT (244 words)


      The comparative effectiveness of transradial (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear.


      Among 8,404 ACS patients in the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX (MATRIX)-Access trial, 5,233 underwent noncomplex (TRA, n=2,590 and TFA, n=2,643) and 1,491 complex PCI (TRA, n=777 and TFA, n=714). Co-primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and the composite of MACE and BARC type 3-5 bleeding (net adverse cardiovascular events, NACE) at 30 days.


      Rates of 30-day MACE (hazard ratio [HR]:0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.72-1.22) or NACE (HR:0.89; 95% CI:0.69-1.14) did not significantly differ between groups in the complex PCI group, whereas both primary endpoints were lower (HR:0.84; 95% CI:0.70-1.00, HR:0.83; 95% CI:0.70-0.98, respectively) with TRA among noncomplex PCI patients, with negative interaction testing (Pint 0.473 and 0.666, respectively). Access-site BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding was lower with TRA, consistently among complex (HR:0.18; 95% CI:0.05-0.63) and noncomplex (HR:0.41; 95% CI:0.20-0.85) PCI patients, whereas the former group had a greater absolute risk reduction of 1.7% (number needed to treat: 59) due to their higher absolute risk.


      Among ACS patients, PCI complexity does not affect the comparative efficacy and safety of TRA versus TFA, whereas the absolute risk reduction of access-site major bleeding was greater with TRA compared with TFA in complex as opposed to noncomplex PCI.

      Graphical abstract

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Canadian Journal of Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. Neumann F-J., Sousa-Uva M., Ahlsson A., et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019;40(2):87–165. Doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394.

        • Mason P.J.
        • Shah B.
        • Tamis-Holland J.E.
        • et al.
        An Update on Radial Artery Access and Best Practices for Transradial Coronary Angiography and Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.
        Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11e000035
        • Jolly S.S.
        • Yusuf S.
        • Cairns J.
        • et al.
        Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial.
        Lancet. 2011; 377: 1409-1420
        • Valgimigli M.
        • Gagnor A.
        • Calabró P.
        • et al.
        Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.
        Lancet. 2015; 385: 2465-2476
      2. Romagnoli E., Biondi-Zoccai G., Sciahbasi A., et al. Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: The RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60(24):2481–2489. Doi:

        • Valgimigli M.
        • Frigoli E.
        • Leonardi S.
        • et al.
        Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2018; 392: 835-848
      3. Andò G., Cortese B., Russo F., et al. Acute Kidney Injury After Radial or Femoral Access for Invasive Acute Coronary Syndrome Management: AKI-MATRIX. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69(21):2592–2603. Doi:

      4. Giustino G., Chieffo A., Palmerini T., et al. Efficacy and Safety of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex PCI. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68(17):1851–1864. Doi:

        • Serruys P.W.
        • Takahashi K.
        • Chichareon P.
        • et al.
        Impact of long-term ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy in patients who underwent complex percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Global Leaders trial.
        Eur Heart J. 2019; 40: 2595-2604
        • Dangas G.
        • Baber U.
        • Sharma S.
        • et al.
        Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin After Complex PCI.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; 75: 2414-2424
        • Meijers T.A.
        • Aminian A.
        • van Wely M.
        • et al.
        Randomized Comparison Between Radial and Femoral Large-Bore Access for Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021; 14: 1293-1303
        • Valgimigli M.
        • Landi A.
        Large-Bore Radial Access for Complex PCI.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021; 14: 1304-1307
      5. Valgimigli M. Design and rationale for the Minimizing Adverse haemorrhagic events by TRansradial access site and systemic Implementation of angioX program. Am Heart J 2014;168(6):838-845.e6. Doi: Partial Page

        • Valgimigli M.
        • Frigoli E.
        • Leonardi S.
        • et al.
        Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes.
        N Engl J Med. 2015; 373: 997-1009
        • Costa F.
        • Van Klaveren D.
        • Feres F.
        • et al.
        Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration Based on Ischemic and Bleeding Risks After Coronary Stenting.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73: 741-754
        • Coughlan J.J.
        • Aytekin A.
        • Ndrepepa G.
        • et al.
        Twelve-month clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.
        Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2021; (zuab077)
        • Valgimigli M.
        • Landi A.
        Ischemic and bleeding risk in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention: is it time to REACT?.
        Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2021; (zuab090)
      6. Chieffo A., Burzotta F., Pappalardo F., et al. Clinical expert consensus document on the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist support devices during complex high-risk indicated PCI: Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology Working Group Endorsed by Spanish and Portuguese Interventional Card. Int J Cardiol 2019;293:84–90. Doi:

      7. Burzotta F., Russo G., Ribichini F., et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Extent of Revascularization in Complex High Risk and Indicated Patients Undergoing Impella-Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Report from the Roma-Verona Registry. J Interv Cardiol 2019;2019:5243913. Doi: 10.1155/2019/5243913.

        • Megaly M.
        • Karatasakis A.
        • Abraham B.
        • et al.
        Radial Versus Femoral Access in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
        Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 12e007778