Alex Sirker1, Chun Shing Kwok2, Rafail Kotronias3, Rodrigo Bagur4, Olivier Bertrand5, Robert Butler6, Colin Berry7, James Nolan6, Keith Oldroyd8, Mamas A Mamas9. 1. Department of Cardiology, University College London Hospitals and St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 2. Cardiovascular Research Group, Institutes of Science and Technology in Medicine, University of Keele and Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom; Department of Cardiology, Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom. 3. Cardiovascular Research Group, Institutes of Science and Technology in Medicine, University of Keele and Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom. 4. Division of Cardiology, University Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 5. Quebec Heart-Lung Institute, Laval University, Laval, Quebec, Canada. 6. Department of Cardiology, Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom. 7. Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom. 8. West of Scotland Regional Heart and Lung Centre, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom. 9. Department of Cardiology, University College London Hospitals and St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Cardiovascular Research Group, Institutes of Science and Technology in Medicine, University of Keele and Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom. Electronic address: mamasmamas1@yahoo.co.uk.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Muhammad Junaid Ahsan; Soban Ahmad; Azka Latif; Noman Lateef; Mohammad Zoraiz Ahsan; Waiel Abusnina; Sandeep Nathan; S Elissa Altin; Dhaval S Kolte; John C Messenger; Mark Tannenbaum; Andrew M Goldsweig Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2022-09-05
Authors: Francesco Moroni; Lorenzo Azzalini; Lars Sondergaard; Guilherme F Attizzani; Santiago García; Hani Jneid; Mamas A Mamas; Rodrigo Bagur Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 6.106
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: Aleka N Scoco; Aravind Addepalli; Shaoyu Zhu; Joshua Benton; Santiago R Unda; Neil Haranhalli; Richard Zampolin; David D Pasquale; Allan Brook; David Altschul Journal: Cureus Date: 2020-06-28
Authors: Amir Aziz Alkatiri; Doni Firman; Nur Haryono; Emir Yonas; Raymond Pranata; Ismir Fahri; I Made Junior Rina Artha; Vireza Pratama; Wishnu Aditya Widodo; Nahar Taufiq; Abdul Hakim Alkatiri; Sunanto Ng; Heru Sulastomo; Sunarya Soerianata Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2020-03-02