Transradial approach in myocardial infarction

Influence of access site choice for cardiac catheterization on risk of adverse neurological events: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Stroke is a rare but potentially catastrophic complication of cardiac catheterization. Although some procedural aspects are known to influence stroke risk, the impact of radial versus femoral access site use is unclear. Early observational studies and limited randomized trial data suggested more frequent embolic events with radial access. Subsequently, larger pooled analyses have shown no clear differences in stroke risk but were limited by low event rates. Recent publication of relevant new data prompted our reevaluation of this concern. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate stroke complicating cardiac catheterization with use of transradial versus transfemoral access.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was undertaken using OVID SP with appropriate search terms. RevMan 5.3.5 was used to conduct a random-effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for pooling risk ratios (RRs) or the Mantel-Haenszel method for pooling dichotomous data. Pooled data from >24,000 patients in randomized controlled trials and >475,000 patients from observational studies were used. The risk ratio (RR) for (any) stroke, using randomized controlled trial data, was not significant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58-1.29). Using observational data, a significant difference favoring radial access was seen (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Radial access site utilization for cardiac catheterization is not associated with an increased risk of stroke events. These data provide reassurance and should remove another potential barrier to conversion to a "default" radial practice among those who are currently predominantly femoral operators.

Comparison of transradial and femoral approaches for percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite lower risks of access site-related complications with transradial approach (TRA), its clinical benefit for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing TRA and transfemoral approach (TFA) for PCI.

METHODS

Randomized trials and observational studies (1993-2011) comparing TRA with TFA for PCI with reports of ischemic and bleeding outcomes were included. Crude and adjusted (for age and sex) odds ratios (OR) were estimated by a hierarchical Bayesian random-effects model with prespecified stratification for observational and randomized designs. The primary outcomes were rates of death, combined incidence of death or myocardial infarction, bleeding, and transfusions, early (≤ 30 days) and late after PCI.

RESULTS

We collected data from 76 studies (15 randomized, 61 observational) involving a total of 761,919 patients. Compared with TFA, TRA was associated with a 78% reduction in bleeding (OR 0.22, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.16-0.29) and 80% in transfusions (OR 0.20, 95% CrI 0.11-0.32). These findings were consistent in both randomized and observational studies. Early after PCI, there was a 44% reduction of mortality with TRA (OR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.45-0.67), although the effect was mainly due to observational studies (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.40-0.63, adjusted OR 0.49 [95% CrI 0.37-0.60]), with an OR of 0.80 (95% CrI 0.49-1.23) in randomized trials.

CONCLUSION

Our results combining observational and randomized studies show that PCI performed by TRA is associated with substantially less risks of bleeding and transfusions compared with TFA. Benefit on the incidence of death or combined death or myocardial infarction is found in observational studies but remains inconclusive in randomized trials.