Feature | May 18, 2011| Adhir Shroff, M.D., MPH

Review of the RIVAL Trial

Transradial has lower vascular complication, bleeding rates than transfemoral access

Figure 1: Access site and bleeding outcomes from the RIVAL trial.

Figure 2: Outcomes of patients with STEMI versus non-STEMI from the RIVAL trial.

The results of the highly anticipated RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL access for coronary intervention)[1,2] trial were presented April 4 at the American College of Cardiology’s 2011 Scientific Session in New Orleans. The basis of the trial was to investigate the efficacy and safety of the transradial approach as compared to the femoral approach in patients being treated with an invasive strategy for an acute coronary syndroThe results of the highly anticipated RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL access for coronary intervention)[1,2] trial were presented April 4 at the American College of Cardiology’s 2011 Scientific Session in New Orleans.  The basis of the trial was to investigate the efficacy and safety of the transradial approach as compared to the femoral approach in patients being treated with an invasive strategy for an acute coronary syndrome.

Presenting the results was Sanjit Jolly, M.D., M.Sc., assistant professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, who explained the radial approach affords a decrease in bleeding and vascular complications.  Several reports have linked bleeding events following coronary intervention to an increased risk of death. Prior to this study, there have been only retrospective studies or pooled analyses that have suggested the radial approach as superior to femoral artery access.

Patients with an acute coronary syndrome were randomized to either the transradial or transfemoral approach. Anticoagulation strategy was left to the discretion of the operator. More than 7,000 patients were included in this multicenter study. The primary endpoints included the occurrence of death, myocardial infarction, stroke or non-coronary artery bypass graft related major bleeding within 30 days.

The key findings of the study included:
• Primary outcome was equivalent between radial and femoral groups (3.7 vs. 4 percent, p=0.50)
• Less vascular access site complications with radial compared to femoral access (p<0.0001) (Figure 1)
• Access site crossover was higher in the radial group (7.6 vs. 2 percent, p<0.0001)
• All access site major bleeds in the radial group occurred in those patients who crossed over to the femoral group
• High-volume radial centers had a benefit for the primary outcome compared with femoral access group (p=0.021)
• Patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) benefited from transradial access for the composite endpoint of death, heart attack and stroke (p=0.011) and death alone (p=0.001) (Figure 2)

In summary, the authors concluded there was no difference in rates of composite death, myocardial infarction, stroke or major bleeding between access strategies, but radial access decreased major vascular complications. Expertise with the transradial technique and procedure volume may be linked to the effectiveness of this approach.

References:
1.    Jolly SS, Niemelä K, Xavier D, et al. “Design and rationale of the RadIal Vs. femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial: A randomized comparison of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes.” American Heart Journal 2011, 161:254-60.

2.    Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, Kari Niemelä DX, Petr Widimsky, Andrzej Budaj, Matti Niemelä, Vicent Valentin, Basil S Lewis,, Alvaro Avezum PGS, Sunil V Rao, Peggy Gao, Rizwan Afzal, Campbell D Joyner, Susan Chrolavicius, Shamir R Mehta, for the group. “Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial.” Lancet 2011.

3.    Jolly SS. “A randomized comparison of RadIal Vs. femorAL access for coronary intervention in ACS (RIVAL).” American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions, New Orleans, 2011.

Related Content

Biotronik, BioMonitor 2 implantable cardiac monitor, BioInsight clinical study, first patients enrolled
News | Implantable Cardiac Monitor (ICM)| January 20, 2017
Biotronik has enrolled the first patients in the BioInsight clinical study evaluating the safety and feasibility of...
ICDs, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, University of Alabama at Birmingham study, Circulation
News | Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICD)| January 18, 2017
A new study published in Circulation has found there is a 23 percent risk in reduction of all-cause mortality in non-...
stress, brain activity, cardiovascular risk, PET-CT, MGH, ISSMS, The Lancet study
News | Cardiac Diagnostics| January 18, 2017
A study led by Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISSMS) investigators...
ICDs, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, survival rate, elderly patients, JACC study
News | Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICD)| January 17, 2017
Of patients over age 65 who received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) after surviving sudden cardiac...
University of Utah, Frank Sachse, heart failure, LVAD implantation, left ventricular assist device, biomarker, t-system

Two patients may seem equally sick based upon clinical measures, but differences in their heart physiology could predict who has the potential to recover from heart failure. A study carried out by scientists at the University of Utah finds that patients whose hearts have flattened t-tubules have a decreased chance of showing signs of recovery after implanting a mechanical heart pump. Ordinarily, t-tubules in the heart are long, thin, and rounded. Image courtesy of Frank Sachse.

News | Cardiac Diagnostics| January 17, 2017
Investigators at the University of Utah have identified distinct differences in the hearts of advanced heart failure...
Synergy stent, abluminal polymer DES, bioresorbable polymer DES, bioresorbable polymer metallic stent

The Synergy stent is the first FDA cleared drug-eluting stent to use a bioresorbable polymer drug carrier. When the polymer dissolves after about four months, the devices become a bare metal stent. The technology is supposed to reduce the rate of late stent thrombosis due to vessel inflammation caused by durable polymers.

Feature | Stents Bioresorbable| January 17, 2017 | Dave Fornell
One of the big advancements in drug-eluting stent (DES) technology has been the development of bioresorbable polymers
St. Jude Medical, Amplatzer Amulet LAA Occluder, observational study, TCT 2016
News | Left Atrial Appendage (LAA) Occluders| November 03, 2016
St. Jude Medical Inc. presented favorable results from the largest observational study to date of the company’s...
Medtronic, CoreValve Evolut R TAVR system, U.S. IDE Study, TCT 2016
News | Heart Valve Technology| November 03, 2016
Medtronic plc unveiled new clinical data showing that patients treated with the self-expanding CoreValve Evolut R...
congenital heart patients, cardiac cath lab, anesthesia sedation practices, joint document, SCAI, SPA, CCAS
News | Congenital Heart| November 03, 2016
The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia (SPA) and the...
open-heart surgery, PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention, NOBLE trial, left main coronary artery disease, LMCAD, TCT 2016
News | Cardiovascular Surgery| November 03, 2016
Coronary artery bypass (CABG) surgery is the standard treatment for revascularization in patients with left main...
Overlay Init