OBJECTIVES: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consistently reported better clinical outcomes with radial as compared to femoral access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Nevertheless, heterogeneous use of potent antiplatelet drugs, such as Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI), across different studies could have biased the results in favor of radial access. We performed an updated meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs in order to appraise whether the use of GPI had an impact on pooled estimates of clinical outcomes according to vascular access. METHODS: We computed pooled estimates by the random-effects model for the following outcomes: mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and target vessel revascularization), and major bleedings. Additionally, we performed meta-regression analysis to investigate the impact of GPI use on pooled estimates of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed 14 randomized controlled trials and 11090 patients who were treated by radial (5497) and femoral access (5593), respectively. Radial access was associated with better outcomes for mortality (risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), p=0.03), MACE (risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.02), p=0.003), and major bleedings (risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.02), p=0.02). At meta-regression, we observed a significant correlation of mortality with both GPI use (p=0.011) and year of publication (p=0.0073), whereas no correlation was observed with major bleedings. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, the use of radial access for primary PCI was associated with better clinical outcomes as compared to femoral access. However, the effect size on mortality was modulated by GPI rate, with greater benefit of radial access in studies with larger use of these drugs.
OBJECTIVES: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consistently reported better clinical outcomes with radial as compared to femoral access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Nevertheless, heterogeneous use of potent antiplatelet drugs, such as Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI), across different studies could have biased the results in favor of radial access. We performed an updated meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs in order to appraise whether the use of GPI had an impact on pooled estimates of clinical outcomes according to vascular access. METHODS: We computed pooled estimates by the random-effects model for the following outcomes: mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and target vessel revascularization), and major bleedings. Additionally, we performed meta-regression analysis to investigate the impact of GPI use on pooled estimates of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed 14 randomized controlled trials and 11090 patients who were treated by radial (5497) and femoral access (5593), respectively. Radial access was associated with better outcomes for mortality (risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), p=0.03), MACE (risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.02), p=0.003), and major bleedings (risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.02), p=0.02). At meta-regression, we observed a significant correlation of mortality with both GPI use (p=0.011) and year of publication (p=0.0073), whereas no correlation was observed with major bleedings. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, the use of radial access for primary PCI was associated with better clinical outcomes as compared to femoral access. However, the effect size on mortality was modulated by GPI rate, with greater benefit of radial access in studies with larger use of these drugs.
Authors: Amit Segev; Bradley H Strauss; Mary Tan; Christian Constance; Anatoly Langer; Shaun G Goodman Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Mohammed Osman; Maryam Saleem; Khansa Osman; Babikir Kheiri; Sean Regner; Qais Radaideh; Jason A Moreland; Sunil V Rao; Samir Kapadia Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Ivo Bernat; David Horak; Josef Stasek; Martin Mates; Jan Pesek; Petr Ostadal; Vlado Hrabos; Jaroslav Dusek; Jiri Koza; Zdenek Sembera; Miroslav Brtko; Ondrej Aschermann; Michal Smid; Pavel Polansky; Abdul Al Mawiri; Jan Vojacek; Josef Bis; Olivier Costerousse; Olivier F Bertrand; Richard Rokyta Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marco Valgimigli; Francesco Costa; Yuliya Lokhnygina; Robert M Clare; Lars Wallentin; David J Moliterno; Paul W Armstrong; Harvey D White; Claes Held; Philip E Aylward; Frans Van de Werf; Robert A Harrington; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Pierluigi Tricoci Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Michel Le May; George Wells; Derek So; Aun Yeong Chong; Alexander Dick; Michael Froeschl; Christopher Glover; Benjamin Hibbert; Jean-Francois Marquis; Melissa Blondeau; Christina Osborne; Andrea MacDougall; Malek Kass; Vernon Paddock; Ata Quraishi; Marino Labinaz Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 14.676