INTRODUCTION: Coronary angiography and angioplasty via transradial approach is shown to be associated with significant reduction in access site complications. Due to a lack of sufficient data, the use of the right or left radial approach is still operator-dependent. We performed a meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies to compare right versus left radial artery approach for coronary procedures. METHODS: We found 12 randomized studies meeting the predetermined inclusion criteria. A total of 6,450 patients were included in the meta-analysis of which 3,217 patients underwent coronary procedures via right radial approach and 3,233 patients via left radial approach. The primary endpoint was the comparison of fluoroscopy time, procedure time, contrast use and cross-over rates between two radial approaches. RESULTS: Pooled analysis of the included studies showed a similar rate of cross-over events (4.2% for right radial approach vs. 4.1% for left radial approach, odds ratio (OR)=1.08, P = 0.68), and similar total procedure times (18.8 ± 10.3 min vs. 18.1 ± 10.0 min, standard difference (SD) of the mean = 0.09, P = 0.162) between the two radial approaches. However, the right radial approach was found to be associated with minimally longer fluoroscopy times (5.8 ± 4.4 min vs. 5.3 ± 4.2 min, SD of the mean = 0.157, P < 0.001) and greater contrast use (84 ± 35 mL vs. 82 ± 34 mL, SD of the mean = 0.082, P = 0.003). Access site complications and the incidence of stroke were similar between two radial approaches. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests a small but statistically significant difference in terms of contrast use and fluoroscopy time in favor of coronary procedures performed via left radial approach in comparison to right radial approach without any significant difference in access site or other procedural complications between the two radial approaches.
INTRODUCTION: Coronary angiography and angioplasty via transradial approach is shown to be associated with significant reduction in access site complications. Due to a lack of sufficient data, the use of the right or left radial approach is still operator-dependent. We performed a meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies to compare right versus left radial artery approach for coronary procedures. METHODS: We found 12 randomized studies meeting the predetermined inclusion criteria. A total of 6,450 patients were included in the meta-analysis of which 3,217 patients underwent coronary procedures via right radial approach and 3,233 patients via left radial approach. The primary endpoint was the comparison of fluoroscopy time, procedure time, contrast use and cross-over rates between two radial approaches. RESULTS: Pooled analysis of the included studies showed a similar rate of cross-over events (4.2% for right radial approach vs. 4.1% for left radial approach, odds ratio (OR)=1.08, P = 0.68), and similar total procedure times (18.8 ± 10.3 min vs. 18.1 ± 10.0 min, standard difference (SD) of the mean = 0.09, P = 0.162) between the two radial approaches. However, the right radial approach was found to be associated with minimally longer fluoroscopy times (5.8 ± 4.4 min vs. 5.3 ± 4.2 min, SD of the mean = 0.157, P < 0.001) and greater contrast use (84 ± 35 mL vs. 82 ± 34 mL, SD of the mean = 0.082, P = 0.003). Access site complications and the incidence of stroke were similar between two radial approaches. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests a small but statistically significant difference in terms of contrast use and fluoroscopy time in favor of coronary procedures performed via left radial approach in comparison to right radial approach without any significant difference in access site or other procedural complications between the two radial approaches.
Authors: Mario Gaudino; Dominick J Angiolillo; Antonino Di Franco; Davide Capodanno; Faisal Bakaeen; Michael E Farkouh; Stephen E Fremes; David Holmes; Leonard N Girardi; Sunao Nakamura; Stuart J Head; Seung-Jung Park; Michael Mack; Patrick W Serruys; Marc Ruel; Gregg W Stone; Derrick Y Tam; Michael Vallely; David P Taggart Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Nohra Chalouhi; Ahmad Sweid; Fadi Al Saiegh; Kalyan C Sajja; Richard F Schmidt; Michael B Avery; Nikolaos Mouchtouris; Omaditya Khanna; Joshua H Weinberg; Victor Romo; Stavropoula Tjoumakaris; Michael Reid Gooch; Nabeel Herial; Robert H Rosenwasser; Pascal Jabbour Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 4.379