OBJECTIVES: Radial artery access (RA) for left heart catheterization and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective. Despite consistent data showing less bleeding complications compared with femoral artery access (FA), it continues to be underused in the United States, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in whom aggressive anticoagulation and platelet inhibition regimens are needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare major cardiovascular outcomes and safety endpoints in patients with ACS managed with PCI using radial versus femoral access. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing RA versus FA in patients with ACS were analyzed. Our primary outcomes were mortality, major adverse cardiac event, major bleeding, and access-related complications. A fixed-effects model was used for the primary analyses. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials and 17 cohort studies involving 44,854 patients with ACS were identified. Compared with FA, RA was associated with a reduction in major bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.61, P < 0.001), access-related complications (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.39, P < 0.001), mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54-0.75, P < 0.001), and major adverse cardiac event (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.85, P < 0.001). These significant reductions were consistent across different study designs and clinical presentations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this large meta-analysis, RA for primary PCI in the setting of ACS is associated with reduction in cardiac and safety endpoints when compared with FA in both urgent and elective procedures. This should encourage a wider adoption of this technique among centers and interventional cardiologists.
OBJECTIVES: Radial artery access (RA) for left heart catheterization and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective. Despite consistent data showing less bleeding complications compared with femoral artery access (FA), it continues to be underused in the United States, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in whom aggressive anticoagulation and platelet inhibition regimens are needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare major cardiovascular outcomes and safety endpoints in patients with ACS managed with PCI using radial versus femoral access. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing RA versus FA in patients with ACS were analyzed. Our primary outcomes were mortality, major adverse cardiac event, major bleeding, and access-related complications. A fixed-effects model was used for the primary analyses. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials and 17 cohort studies involving 44,854 patients with ACS were identified. Compared with FA, RA was associated with a reduction in major bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.61, P < 0.001), access-related complications (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.39, P < 0.001), mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54-0.75, P < 0.001), and major adverse cardiac event (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.85, P < 0.001). These significant reductions were consistent across different study designs and clinical presentations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this large meta-analysis, RA for primary PCI in the setting of ACS is associated with reduction in cardiac and safety endpoints when compared with FA in both urgent and elective procedures. This should encourage a wider adoption of this technique among centers and interventional cardiologists.
Authors: Philippe Généreux; Roxana Mehran; Tullio Palmerini; Adriano Caixeta; Ajay J Kirtane; Alexandra J Lansky; Bruce R Brodie; Bernhard Witzenbichler; Martin Mockel; Giulio Guagliumi; Jan Z Peruga; Dariusz Dudek; Martin P Fahy; George Dangas; Gregg W Stone Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Ronald P Caputo; Jennifer A Tremmel; Sunil Rao; Ian C Gilchrist; Christopher Pyne; Samir Pancholy; Douglas Frasier; Rajiv Gulati; Kimberly Skelding; Olivier Bertrand; Tejas Patel Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2011-05-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sanjit S Jolly; Salim Yusuf; John Cairns; Kari Niemelä; Denis Xavier; Petr Widimsky; Andrzej Budaj; Matti Niemelä; Vicent Valentin; Basil S Lewis; Alvaro Avezum; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Sunil V Rao; Peggy Gao; Rizwan Afzal; Campbell D Joyner; Susan Chrolavicius; Shamir R Mehta Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Yves Louvard; Josef Ludwig; Thierry Lefèvre; Alexander Schmeisser; Martin Brück; Dierk Scheinert; Christophe Loubeyre; Lutz Klinghammer; Marie-Claude Morice; Frank A Flachskampf; Werner G Daniel Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: S L Hetherington; Z Adam; R Morley; M A de Belder; J A Hall; D F Muir; A G C Sutton; N Swanson; R A Wright Journal: Heart Date: 2009-07-12 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: M Moscucci; K A A Fox; Christopher P Cannon; W Klein; José López-Sendón; G Montalescot; K White; R J Goldberg Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Dmitriy N Feldman; Rajesh V Swaminathan; Lisa A Kaltenbach; Dmitri V Baklanov; Luke K Kim; S Chiu Wong; Robert M Minutello; John C Messenger; Issam Moussa; Kirk N Garratt; Robert N Piana; William B Hillegass; Mauricio G Cohen; Ian C Gilchrist; Sunil V Rao Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ahmed A Kolkailah; Rabah S Alreshq; Ahmed M Muhammed; Mohamed E Zahran; Marwah Anas El-Wegoud; Ashraf F Nabhan Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-04-18
Authors: Ciro Indolfi; Francesco Passafaro; Sabato Sorrentino; Carmen Spaccarotella; Annalisa Mongiardo; Daniele Torella; Alberto Polimeni; Jolanda Sabatino; Antonio Curcio; Salvatore De Rosa Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 4.241