Radial Access for Coronary Angiography Carries Fewer Complications Compared with Femoral Access: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: In patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), the benefits associated with radial access compared with the femoral access approach remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term evidence-based clinical outcome of the two approaches. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radial versus femoral access for CA and PCI. We identified 34 RCTs with 29,352 patients who underwent CA and/or PCI and compared 14,819 patients randomized for radial access with 14,533 who underwent procedures using femoral access. The follow-up period for clinical outcome was 30 days in all studies. Dat

SUBMITTER: Bajraktari G 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8156941 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature