Currently, transradial access (TRA) is the recommended access for coronary procedures because of increased safety, with radial artery occlusion (RAO) being its most frequent complication, which will increasingly affect patients undergoing multiple procedures during their lifetimes. Recently, distal radial access (DRA) has emerged as a promising alternative access to minimize RAO risk. A large-scale, international, randomized trial comparing RAO with TRA and DRA is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the superiority of DRA compared with conventional TRA with respect to forearm RAO. DISCO RADIAL (Distal vs Conventional Radial Access) was an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in which patients with indications for percutaneous coronary procedure using a 6-F Slender sheath were randomized to DRA or TRA with systematic implementation of best practices to reduce RAO. The primary endpoint was the incidence of forearm RAO assessed by vascular ultrasound at discharge. Secondary endpoints include crossover, hemostasis time, and access site-related complications. Overall, 657 patients underwent TRA, and 650 patients underwent DRA. Forearm RAO did not differ between groups (0.91% vs 0.31%; P = 0.29). Patent hemostasis was achieved in 94.4% of TRA patients. Crossover rates were higher with DRA (3.5% vs 7.4%; P = 0.002), and median hemostasis time was shorter (180 vs 153 minutes; P < 0.001). Radial artery spasm occurred more with DRA (2.7% vs 5.4%; P = 0.015). Overall bleeding events and vascular complications did not differ between groups. With the implementation of a rigorous hemostasis protocol, DRA and TRA have equally low RAO rates. DRA is associated with a higher crossover rate but a shorter hemostasis time.

Background: No study has so far compared Amulet with the new Watchman FLX in terms of residual left atrial appendage (LAA) patency or clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous LAA closure. Methods: In the investigator-initiated SWISS APERO trial (Comparison of Amulet Versus Watchman/FLX Device in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure), patients undergoing LAA closure were randomly assigned (1:1) open label to receive Amulet or Watchman 2.5 or FLX (Watchman) across 8 European centers. The primary end point was the composite of justified crossover to a nonrandomized device during LAA closure procedure or residual LAA patency detected by cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days. The secondary end points included procedural complications, device-related thrombus, peridevice leak at transesophageal echocardiography, and clinical outcomes at 45 days. Results: Between June 2018 and May 2021, 221 patients were randomly assigned to Amulet (111 [50.2%]) or Watchman (110 [49.8%]), of whom 25 (22.7%) patients included before October 2019 received Watchman 2.5, and 85 (77.3%) patients received Watchman FLX. The primary end point was assessable in 205 (92.8%) patients and occurred in 71 (67.6%) patients receiving Amulet and 70 (70.0%) patients receiving Watchman, respectively (risk ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.80–1.16]; P =0.713). A single justified crossover occurred in a patient with Amulet who fulfilled LAA patency criteria at 45-day CCTA. Major procedure-related complications occurred more frequently in the Amulet group (9.0% versus 2.7%; P =0.047) because of more frequent bleeding (7.2% versus 1.8%). At 45 days, the peridevice leak rate at transesophageal echocardiography was higher with Watchman than with Amulet (27.5% versus 13.7%, P =0.020), albeit none was major (ie, >5 mm), whereas device-related thrombus was detected in 1 (0.9%) patient with Amulet and 3 (3.0%) patients with Watchman at CCTA and in 2 (2.1%) and 5 (5.5%) patients at transesophageal echocardiography, respectively. Clinical outcomes at 45 days did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: Amulet was not associated with a lower rate of the composite of crossover or residual LAA patency compared with Watchman at 45-day CCTA. Amulet, however, was associated with lower peridevice leak rates at transesophageal echocardiography, higher procedural complications, and similar clinical outcomes at 45 days compared with Watchman. The clinical relevance of CCTA-detected LAA patency requires further investigation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03399851.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with multivessel coronary disease not involving the left main have shown significantly lower rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke after CABG. These studies did not routinely use current-generation drug-eluting stents or fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide PCI. METHODS: FAME 3 (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, international, randomized trial involving patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease (not involving the left main coronary artery) in 48 centers worldwide. Patients were randomly assigned to receive FFR-guided PCI using zotarolimus drug-eluting stents or CABG. The prespecified key secondary end point of the trial reported here is the 3-year incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke. RESULTS: A total of 1500 patients were randomized to FFR-guided PCI or CABG. Follow-up was achieved in >96% of patients in both groups. There was no difference in the incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke after FFR-guided PCI compared with CABG (12.0% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.3 [95% CI, 0.98–1.83]; P =0.07). The rates of death (4.1% versus 3.9%; HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6–1.7]; P =0.88) and stroke (1.6% versus 2.0%; HR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4–1.7]; P =0.56) were not different. MI occurred more frequently after PCI (7.0% versus 4.2%; HR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.1–2.7]; P =0.02). CONCLUSIONS: At 3-year follow-up, there was no difference in the incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke after FFR-guided PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents compared with CABG. There was a higher incidence of MI after PCI compared with CABG, with no difference in death or stroke. These results provide contemporary data to allow improved shared decision-making between physicians and patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02100722.