Dataset Information

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures.

Objectives

To assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both).

Search methods

We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD.

Data collection and analysis

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author.

Main results

We identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence).

Authors' conclusions

Transradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).

SUBMITTER: Kolkailah AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6494633 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTransfemoral approach (TFA) remains the most common vascular access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in many countries. However, in the last years several randomized trials compared transradial approach (TRA) with TFA in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but only few studies were powered to estimate rare events. The aim of the current study was to clarify whether TRA is superior to TFA approach in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A meta-analysis, meta-regression and trial sequential analysis of safety and efficacy of TRA in ACS setting was performed.Methods and resultsMedline, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, scientific session abstracts and relevant websites were searched. Data concerning the study design, patient characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were extracted. The primary endpoint was death. Secondary endpoints were: major bleeding and vascular complications. Outcomes were assessed within 30 days. Eleven randomized trials involving 9,202 patients were included. Compared with TFA, TRA significantly reduced the risk of death (odds ratio [OR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.94; p?=?0.016), but this finding was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis, indicating that sufficient evidence had not been yet reached. Furthermore, TRA compared with TFA reduced the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41-0.88; p?=?0.008) and vascular complications (OR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.28-0.46; p<0.001); these findings were supported by trial sequential analyses.ConclusionsIn patients with ACS undergoing PCI, a lower risk of death was observed with TRA. Nevertheless, the association between mortality and TRA in ACS setting should be interpreted with caution because it is based on insufficient evidence. However, because of the clinical relevance associated with major bleeding and vascular complications reduction, TRA should be recommended as first-choice vascular access in patients with ACS undergoing cardiac catheterization.

Project description:Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of routine transradial approach (TRA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) lesions using the sheathless technique with standard guiding catheters.Transradial approach PCI was applied for CTO lesions. A major limitation of TRA CTO PCI is the inability to use large guiding catheters because of the relatively small size of the radial artery. Therefore, the sheathless technique for TRA PCI has been recently developed. However, reports on TRA CTO PCI using the sheathless technique are still lacking.Sixty-eight patients with CTO lesions were enrolled for TRA PCI using the sheathless technique with standard guiding catheters. The baseline characteristics, coronary angiographic characteristics and major procedure or access site related complications were compared between procedure success and procedure failure group to determine the predictors of success in sheathless CTO PCI. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were also evaluated in this study. Routine assessments of radial artery occlusion via Doppler ultrasound and pulse oximeter were recorded during one-year clinical follow-up.The mean duration of CTO by history was 31.8 ± 42.3 months. The 7 Fr standard guiding catheter was used with the sheathless technique in 91.2%, and bilateral sheathless approach in 42.6% of the study patients. The procedure-related complications included coronary perforation needing covered stent deployment (2.9%), cardiac tamponade (2.9%), collateral perforation needing coil deployment (4.4%), and contrast induced nephropathy (2.9%). Only 2 patients (2.9%) experienced forearm ecchymosis at the radial artery access sites. In-hospital mortality and 30-day all-cause mortality were 2.9%, and 30-day MACEs were 1.5%. The rate of radial artery occlusion during one-year clinical follow-up was only 3.0%.It is feasible and safe to routinely use the sheathless technique with standard guiding catheters for TRA CTO PCI, with a low incidence of procedure-related complications and long-term radial artery occlusion.