Post-the SAFARI STEMI study: Is there still a debate on radial vs. femoral access in STEMI?

ABSTRACT

Despite the seminal trials on radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) showing reduced bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality; these outcomes were attributed by some to low usage of bivalirudin and an unnecessarily higher dose of Heparin, combined with high usage of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, as well as to the use of larger bore catheters in the femoral groups. To prove the point, a study comparing TF with TR access was mooted( Lee et al., 2013) 3; with bivalirudin instead of heparin, preferably with use of potent oral anti-platelets instead of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors; and femoral vascular closure devices, ostensibly, to assess outcomes based on 'access-site alone'. With this intent, the SAFARI STEMI study was designed. In this article we discuss some of the major short-comings of this trial which raise significant questions on its results.