Prediction of radial crossover in acute coronary syndromes: derivation and validation of the MATRIX score.

BACKGROUND The radial artery is recommended by international guidelines as the default vascular access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) managed invasively. However, crossover from radial to femoral access is required in 4-10% of cases and has been associated with worse outcomes. No standardised algorithm exists to predict the risk of radial crossover. AIMS We sought to derive and externally validate a risk score to predict radial crossover in patients with ACS managed invasively. METHODS The derivation cohort consisted of 4,197 patients with ACS undergoing invasive management via the randomly allocated radial access from the MATRIX trial. Using logistic regression, we selected predictors of radial crossover and developed a numerical risk score. External validation was accomplished among 3,451 and 491 ACS patients managed invasively and randomised to radial access from the RIVAL and RIFLE-STEACS trials, respectively. RESULTS The MATRIX score (age, height, smoking, renal failure, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, Killip class, radial expertise) showed a c-index for radial crossover of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.67-0.75) in the derivation cohort. Discrimination ability was modest in the RIVAL (c-index: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.59-0.67) and RIFLE-STEACS (c-index: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.57-0.75) cohorts. A cut-off of ≥41 points was selected to identify patients at high risk of radial crossover. CONCLUSIONS The MATRIX score is a simple eight-item risk score which provides a standardised tool for the prediction of radial crossover among patients with ACS managed invasively. This tool can assist operators in anticipating and better addressing difficulties related to transradial procedures, potentially improving outcomes.

[1]  S. Windecker,et al.  Access-Site Crossover in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Management. , 2021, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[2]  D. Faxon,et al.  Impact of Crossover: A Consideration for Initial Access Site Selection. , 2021, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[3]  S. Pocock,et al.  Validation of high bleeding risk criteria and definition as proposed by the academic research consortium for high bleeding risk. , 2020, European heart journal.

[4]  G. Wells,et al.  Safety and Efficacy of Femoral Access vs Radial Access in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The SAFARI-STEMI Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2020, JAMA cardiology.

[5]  Maarten van Smeden,et al.  Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics , 2019, BMC Medicine.

[6]  S. Windecker,et al.  Femoral Access With or Without Vascular Closure Device or Radial Access in Acute Coronary Syndrome. , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[7]  M. Valgimigli,et al.  Radial vs femoral access for the prevention of acute kidney injury (AKI) after coronary angiography or intervention: A systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2018, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[8]  E. Bramucci,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 , 2018, The Lancet.

[9]  S. Windecker,et al.  Impact of Sex on Comparative Outcomes of Radial Versus Femoral Access in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Invasive Management: Data From the Randomized MATRIX-Access Trial. , 2018, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[10]  S. Achenbach,et al.  Predictors of Technical Failure in Transradial Coronary Angiography and Intervention. , 2017, The American journal of cardiology.

[11]  M. Albanese,et al.  From Femoral to Radial Approach in Coronary Intervention , 2017, Angiology.

[12]  J. Dery,et al.  Prediction and impact of failure of transradial approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention , 2016, Heart.

[13]  Binita Shah,et al.  Predictors of Access Site Crossover in Patients Who Underwent Transradial Coronary Angiography. , 2015, The American journal of cardiology.

[14]  Gary S Collins,et al.  Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[15]  H. Ly,et al.  Effect of radial-to-femoral access crossover on adverse outcomes in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2014, The American journal of cardiology.

[16]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Procedural volume and outcomes with radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  Christian Pristipino,et al.  Consensus document on the radial approach in percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: position paper by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care** and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology. , 2013, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[18]  E. Romagnoli,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. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[19]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Routine use of the transradial approach in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: procedural aspects and outcomes in 2209 patients treated in a single high-volume centre , 2011, Heart.

[20]  Sunil V. Rao,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial , 2011, The Lancet.

[21]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  P. Dehghani,et al.  Mechanism and predictors of failed transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions. , 2009, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[23]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Using Clinical Factors and Mammographic Breast Density to Estimate Breast Cancer Risk: Development and Validation of a New Predictive Model , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[24]  N. Cook Use and Misuse of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Risk Prediction , 2007, Circulation.

[25]  F. Harrell,et al.  Evaluating the yield of medical tests. , 1982, JAMA.

[26]  Helmut Baumgartner,et al.  ESC / EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization , 2014 .