Abstract
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.
Highlights
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents a cornerstone for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS)
The association between mortality and transradial approach (TRA) in ACS setting should be interpreted with caution because it is based on insufficient evidence
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
Summary
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents a cornerstone for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). During the last two decades, transradial approach (TRA) emerged as a valid alternative to TFA, because of earlier ambulation, shorter hospital stay and possibly reduced bleeding risk [2]. Despite these advantages, TRA for catheterization was performed infrequently (,3%) in the United States between 2005 and 2009 [3]. Transfemoral approach (TFA) remains the most common vascular access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in many countries. 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. A meta-analysis, meta-regression and trial sequential analysis of safety and efficacy of TRA in ACS setting was performed
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.