Ultrasound-Guided Transfemoral Access for Coronary Procedures: A Pooled Learning Curve Analysis From the FAUST and UNIVERSAL Trials.

BACKGROUND: The learning curve for new operators performing ultrasound-guided transfemoral access (TFA) remains uncertain. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of the FAUST (Femoral Arterial Access With Ultrasound Trial) and UNIVERSAL (Routine Ultrasound Guidance for Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures) trials, both multicenter randomized controlled trials of 1:1 ultrasound-guided versus non-ultrasound-guided TFA for coronary procedures. Outcomes included the composite of major bleeding or vascular complications and successful common femoral artery cannulation. Participants were stratified by the operators' accrued case volume. We used adjusted repeated-measurement logistic regression, with random intercepts for operator clustering, for comparison against the non-ultrasound-guided TFA group and to model the learning curve. RESULTS: The FAUST and UNIVERSAL trials randomized a total of 1624 patients, of which 810 were randomized to non-ultrasound-guided TFA and 814 to ultrasound-guided TFA (cases 1-10, 391; 11-20, 183; and >20, 240). Participants who had operators who performed >20 ultrasound-guided TFAs had a decreased risk for the primary end point (5/240 [2.1%] versus 64/810 [7.9%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.09-0.61]) compared with non-ultrasound-guided TFA. Operators who performed >20 ultrasound-guided procedures had increased odds of successfully cannulating the common femoral artery (224/246 [91.1%] versus 327/382 [85.6%]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.08-2.89]) compared with non-ultrasound-guided TFA. The learning curve plots demonstrated growing competence with increasing accrued cases. CONCLUSIONS: New operators should perform at least 20 ultrasound-guided TFA to decrease access site complications and increase proper cannulation compared with non-ultrasound-guided TFA. Additional accrued cases may lead to increased proficiency. Training programs should consider these findings in the transradial era.

Ultrasound-guided femoral access in patients with vascular closure devices: a prespecified analysis of the randomised UNIVERSAL trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether ultrasound (US)-guided femoral access compared to femoral access without US guidance decreases access site complications in patients receiving a vascular closure device (VCD) is unclear. AIMS: We aimed to compare the safety of VCD in patients undergoing US-guided versus non-US-guided femoral arterial access for coronary procedures. METHODS: We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the UNIVERSAL trial, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of 1:1 US-guided femoral access versus non-US-guided femoral access, stratified for planned VCD use, for coronary procedures on a background of fluoroscopic landmarking. The primary endpoint was a composite of major Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 bleeding and vascular complications at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 621 patients, 328 (52.8%) received a VCD (86% ANGIO-SEAL, 14% ProGlide). In patients who received a VCD, those randomised to US-guided femoral access compared to non-US-guided femoral access experienced a reduction in major bleeding or vascular complications (20/170 [11.8%] vs 37/158 [23.4%], odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.82). In patients who did not receive a VCD, there was no difference between the US- and non-US-guided femoral access groups, respectively (20/141 [14.2%] vs 13/152 [8.6%], OR 1.76, 95% CI: 0.80-4.03; interaction p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving a VCD after coronary procedures, US-guided femoral access was associated with fewer bleeding and vascular complications compared to femoral access without US guidance. US guidance for femoral access may be particularly beneficial when VCD are used.

Routine Ultrasonography Guidance for Femoral Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures: The UNIVERSAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A significant limitation of femoral artery access for cardiac interventions is the increased risk of vascular complications and bleeding compared with radial access. Strategies to make femoral access safer are needed. Objective: To determine whether routinely using ultrasonography guidance for femoral arterial access for coronary angiography/intervention reduces bleeding or vascular complications. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Routine Ultrasound Guidance for Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures (UNIVERSAL) randomized clinical trial is a multicenter, prospective, open-label trial of ultrasonography-guided femoral access vs no ultrasonography for coronary angiography or intervention with planned femoral access. Patients were randomized from June 26, 2018, to April 26, 2022. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were not eligible. Interventions: Ultrasonography guidance vs no ultrasonography guidance for femoral arterial access on a background of fluoroscopic landmarking. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary composite outcome is the composite of major bleeding based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 criteria or major vascular complications within 30 days. Results: A total of 621 patients were randomized at 2 centers in Canada (mean [SD] age, 71 [10.24] years; 158 [25.4%] female). The primary outcome occurred in 40 of 311 patients (12.9%) in the ultrasonography group vs 50 of 310 patients (16.1%) without ultrasonography (odds ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.49-1.20]; P = .25). The rates of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding were 10.0% (31 of 311) vs 10.7% (33 of 310) (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.55-1.56]; P = .78). The rates of major vascular complications were 6.4% (20 of 311) vs 9.4% (29 of 310) (odds ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.37-1.20]; P = .18). Ultrasonography improved first-pass success (277 of 311 [86.6%] vs 222 of 310 [70.0%]; odds ratio, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.85-4.12]; P < .001) and reduced the number of arterial puncture attempts (mean [SD], 1.2 [0.5] vs 1.4 [0.8]; mean difference, -0.26 [95% CI, -0.37 to -0.16]; P < .001) and venipuncture (10 of 311 [3.1%] vs 37 of 310 [11.7%]; odds ratio, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.12-0.50]; P < .001) with similar times to access (mean [SD], 114 [185] vs 129 [206] seconds; mean difference, -15.1 [95% CI, -45.9 to 15.8]; P = .34). All prerandomization prespecified subgroups were consistent with the overall finding. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, use of ultrasonography for femoral access did not reduce bleeding or vascular complications. However, ultrasonography did reduce the risk of venipuncture and number of attempts. Larger trials may be required to demonstrate additional potential benefits of ultrasonography-guided access. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03537118.

Association of Thrombus Aspiration With Time and Mortality Among Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized TOTAL Trial.

Importance: Patients with shorter ischemic times have a greater viable myocardium and may derive greater benefit from thrombus aspiration. Objective: To study the association of thrombus aspiration with outcomes among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) based on time. Design, Setting, and Participants: The TOTAL (Thrombectomy With PCI vs PCI Alone in Patients with STEMI) trial was an international randomized clinical trial of 10 732 patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 12 hours of symptom onset. Patients were recruited between August 5, 2010, and July 25, 2014, and were followed up for 1 year. Data analysis was performed from February 22, 2019, to January 5, 2021. Interventions: Thrombus aspiration vs PCI alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Post hoc subgroup analyses were performed for total ischemic time and first medical contact (FMC)-to-device time for the primary outcomes (cardiovascular [CV] mortality, myocardial Infarction [MI], cardiogenic shock, and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure) and angiographically determined distal embolization. In addition, a multivariable analysis was performed to assess the association of total ischemic time and FMC-to-device time with CV mortality at 1 year. Results: The study randomized 10 732 patients, and 9986 underwent primary PCI and had time data available (7737 men [77.5%]; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [12.0] years). For the randomized comparison of thrombus aspiration, there was a reduction in angiographic distal embolization with thrombus aspiration that was more pronounced in patients with short ischemic times (<2 hours: odds ratio [OR], 0.23 [95% CI, 0.09-0.62]; 2-6 hours: OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.39-0.73]; >6 hours: OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.33-1.50]; P = .12 for interaction). However, for the primary composite outcome, there was no benefit based on (1) total ischemic time (<2 hours: hazard ratio [HR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.46-1.28]; 2-6 hours: HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.85-1.25]; >6 hours: HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.60-1.27]; P = .46 for interaction) or (2) FMC-to-device time (<60 minutes: HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.66-1.95]; 60-90 minutes: HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.67-1.32]; >90-120 minutes: HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.85-1.67]; >120 minutes: HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.70-1.14]; P = .54 for interaction). In a multivariable analysis, both total ischemic time (>2 hours: HR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.00-1.58) and FMC-to-device time (>120 minutes: HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.18-1.79]) were independently associated with CV mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis suggests that thrombus aspiration does not appear to be associated with an improvement in clinical outcomes regardless of ischemic time. In the current STEMI era, both total ischemic time and FMC-to-device times continue to be important factors associated with mortality. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01149044.