RESUMO
Background Small trials have suggested that radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reducesvascular complications and bleeding compared with femoral access. We aimed to assess whether radial access was superior to femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who were undergoing coronaryangiography with possible intervention.Methods The RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial was a randomised, parallel group,multicentre trial. Patients with ACS were randomly assigned (1:1) by a 24 h computerised central automated voiceresponse system to radial or femoral artery access. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardialinfarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft (non-CABG)-related major bleeding at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days. A masked central committee adjudicated the primary outcome, components of the primary outcome, and stent thrombosis. All other outcomes were as reported by the investigators. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01014273. Findings Between June 6, 2006, and Nov 3, 2010, 7021 patients were enrolled from 158 hospitals in 32 countries.3507 patients were randomly assigned to radial access and 3514 to femoral access. The primary outcome occurred in128 (3·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial access group compared with 139 (4·0%) of 3514 in the femoral access group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·721·17; p=0·50). Of the six prespecifi ed subgroups, there was a signifi cant interaction for the primary outcome with benefi t for radial access in highest tertile volume radial centres (HR 0·49, 95% CI 0·280·87; p=0·015)...