Abstract
ABSTRACT Background The clinical efficacy and safety of transradial (TR) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in comparison to transfemoral (TF) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) is not well studied in literature. Objectives: We sought to study the outcome and complications associated with TR compared with TF for CTO interventions. Methods After a systematic literature search was done in PubMed and EMBASE, we performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing TF and TR for CTO PCI. Results: Twelve studies with 19,309 patients were included. Compared to those who has TF access, individuals who were treated via TR approach had statistically significant lower access complication rates [odds ratio (OR): 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22 to 0.49; p < 0.0001]. The procedural success was in the favor of TR method (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.31–1. 51; p < 0.0001). The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and contrast-induced nephropathy were similar in both groups. Conclusion When compared with TF access interventions in CTO PCI; the TR approach appears to be associated with far less access-site complications, higher procedural success, and comparable MACCE.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.