deltatrials
Completed PHASE4 INTERVENTIONAL NCT00356044

Arterial Access for Coronary Intervention in Myocardial Infarction

Femoral Versus Radial Access for Coronary Intervention in the Acute Phase of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Sponsor: Hospital Juan Canalejo

Updated 5 times since 2017 Last updated: Jul 10, 2007 Started: May 31, 2004 Completion: Dec 31, 2005
This information is for research purposes only and is not medical advice. Consult a healthcare provider before making any medical decision.

A PHASE4 clinical study on Angioplasty, Transluminal, Percutaneous Coronary and Myocardial Infarction, this trial is completed. The trial is conducted by Hospital Juan Canalejo and has accumulated 5 data snapshots since 2004. Cardiovascular trials of this type often inform treatment guidelines for long-term patient management.

Study Description(click to expand)

Some groups have previously used the radial artery as the access route in the procedures of percutaneous coronary revascularization, with good results. The advantages of the radial compared with femoral access are related to a lower incidence of vascular complications. The radial access has also inconveniences such as a less predictable anatomy which can make the procedure difficult and prolong the time required.The patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction have an increased risk of vascular complications after interventional procedures because previous antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy.On the other hand, the time and success of the procedure are significant prognostic issues.In this sitting, the radial approach might reduce vascular complications and increase other cardiovascular events when comparing with the classical femoral access. For this reason, the purpose of the study is to compare both arterial access in terms of efficacy and security and to quantify the consequences of the advantages and drawbacks of both.

Some groups have previously used the radial artery as the access route in the procedures of percutaneous coronary revascularization, with good results. The advantages of the radial compared with femoral access are related to a lower incidence of vascular complications. The radial access has also inconveniences such as a less predictable anatomy which can make the procedure difficult and prolong the time required.The patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction have an increased risk of vascular complications after interventional procedures because previous antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy.On the other hand, the time and success of the procedure are significant prognostic issues.In this sitting, the radial approach might reduce vascular complications and increase other cardiovascular events when comparing with the classical femoral access. For this reason, the purpose of the study is to compare both arterial access in terms of efficacy and security and to quantify the consequences of the advantages and drawbacks of both.

Status Flow

~Jan 2017 – ~Jun 2018 · 17 months · monthly snapshotCompleted~Jun 2018 – ~Jan 2021 · 31 months · monthly snapshotCompleted~Jan 2021 – ~Jul 2024 · 42 months · monthly snapshotCompleted~Jul 2024 – ~Sep 2024 · 2 months · monthly snapshotCompleted~Sep 2024 – present · 19 months · monthly snapshotCompleted

Change History

5 versions recorded
  1. Sep 2024 — Present [monthly]

    Completed PHASE4

  2. Jul 2024 — Sep 2024 [monthly]

    Completed PHASE4

  3. Jan 2021 — Jul 2024 [monthly]

    Completed PHASE4

  4. Jun 2018 — Jan 2021 [monthly]

    Completed PHASE4

  5. Jan 2017 — Jun 2018 [monthly]

    Completed PHASE4

    First recorded

May 2004

Trial started

Per CT.gov start date — pre-dates our first snapshot

Eligibility Summary

No eligibility information available.

Contact Information

Sponsor contact:
  • Hospital Juan Canalejo
Data source: Hospital Juan Canalejo

For direct contact, visit the study record on ClinicalTrials.gov .