OBJECTIVES: Periprocedural bleedings, often related to vascular access site, represent an important drawback of percutaneous coronary procedures and are associated with worse outcomes. Radial access (RA) and, potentially, femoral access (FA) with vascular closure device (VCD) are useful strategies in order to mitigate periprocedural bleedings; nevertheless, their relative efficacy is largely undetermined. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of available studies comparing the efficacy of RA and FA with hemostasis by VCD (FA + VCD) on the reduction of access-site complications and/or periprocedural bleedings. METHODS: Published studies reporting outcomes on access-site complications and periprocedural bleedings were included in the analysis. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by random-effects model and were used as summary statistics. RESULTS: We included in the analysis 13 studies, of which 5 were randomized. Access-site complications were reported by 11 studies, amounting to 157,031 patients (77,713 in the RA group and 79,318 in the FA + VCD group), whereas periprocedural bleedings were reported by 12 studies, amounting to 600,196 patients (137,277 in the RA group and 462,919 in the FA + VCD group). RA was associated with a significant reduction in access-site complications (OR, 0.25; 95% CI ,0.21-0.31; P<.001) and periprocedural bleedings (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34-0.48; P<.001) as compared with FA + VCD; the results were consistent among randomized and observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that RA is superior to FA + VCD in the reduction of access-site complications and periprocedural bleedings.
OBJECTIVES: Periprocedural bleedings, often related to vascular access site, represent an important drawback of percutaneous coronary procedures and are associated with worse outcomes. Radial access (RA) and, potentially, femoral access (FA) with vascular closure device (VCD) are useful strategies in order to mitigate periprocedural bleedings; nevertheless, their relative efficacy is largely undetermined. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of available studies comparing the efficacy of RA and FA with hemostasis by VCD (FA + VCD) on the reduction of access-site complications and/or periprocedural bleedings. METHODS: Published studies reporting outcomes on access-site complications and periprocedural bleedings were included in the analysis. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by random-effects model and were used as summary statistics. RESULTS: We included in the analysis 13 studies, of which 5 were randomized. Access-site complications were reported by 11 studies, amounting to 157,031 patients (77,713 in the RA group and 79,318 in the FA + VCD group), whereas periprocedural bleedings were reported by 12 studies, amounting to 600,196 patients (137,277 in the RA group and 462,919 in the FA + VCD group). RA was associated with a significant reduction in access-site complications (OR, 0.25; 95% CI ,0.21-0.31; P<.001) and periprocedural bleedings (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34-0.48; P<.001) as compared with FA + VCD; the results were consistent among randomized and observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that RA is superior to FA + VCD in the reduction of access-site complications and periprocedural bleedings.