Short-term risk of periprocedural stroke relative to radial vs. femoral access: systematic review, meta-analysis, study sequential analysis and meta-regression of 2,188,047 real-world cardiac catheterizations

References

• Kolkailah AA, Alreshq RS, Muhammed AM, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease. In: Group CH, editor. Cochrane database syst rev [internet]. 2018. [cited 2022 Apr 20]. Vol. 2018. Group CH, editor. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD012318.pub2.
   Google Scholar
• Chiarito M, Cao D, Nicolas J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions: an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97:1387–1396.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Neumann F-J, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2018;2019(40):87–165.
   Google Scholar
• Collet J-P, Thiele H, Barbato E, et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2020;2021(42):1289–1367.
   Google Scholar
• Lawton J, Tamis-Holland J, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;79(2):e21–e129. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.00.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamon M, Baron J-C, Viader F, et al. Periprocedural Stroke and Cardiac Catheterization. Circulation. 2008;118:678–683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jolly SS, Amlani S, Hamon M, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J. 2009;157:132–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel VG, Brayton KM, Kumbhani DJ, et al. Meta-analysis of stroke after transradial versus transfemoral artery catheterization. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:5234–5238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrante G, Rao SV, Jüni P, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions across the entire spectrum of patients with coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:1419–1434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirker A, Kwok CS, Kotronias R, et al. Influence of access site choice for cardiac catheterization on risk of adverse neurological events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2016;181:107–119.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Apala DR, Jhand A, Thandra A, et al. A meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of transradial versus transfemoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:1283.
   Google Scholar
• Brener MI, Bush A, Miller JM, et al. Influence of radial versus femoral access site on coronary angiography and intervention outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Off J Soc Card Angiogr Interv. 2017;90:1093–1104.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karrowni W, Vyas A, Giacomino B, et al. Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:814–823.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Virk HUH, Ullah W, Ahmed M, et al. Transradial versus Transfemoral artery catheterization: a comparative meta-analysis on cerebrovascular accidents. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2021;19:103–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jhand A, Atti V, Gwon Y, et al. Meta-analysis of transradial vs transfemoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST elevation myocardial Infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2021;141:23–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Senguttuvan NB, Reddy PMK, Shankar P, et al. Trans-radial approach versus trans-femoral approach in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLOS ONE. 2022;17:e0266709.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Juliane Jurga. The impact of different techniques used for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention on the occurrence of procedure-related ischemic cerebral complications; from the department of medicine. Vol. . : Karolinska University Hospital Karolinska Institutet; 2016. ISBN: 978-91-7676-225-7. https://openarchive.ki.se/xmlui/handle/10616/45020
   Google Scholar
• Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01
   Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Df S, Ja B, Sc M, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group [Internet]. JAMA. 2000 cited 2023 Feb 22;283: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10789670/
   Google Scholar
• Efthimiou O. Practical guide to the meta-analysis of rare events. Evid Based Ment Health. 2018;21:72–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haldane JBS. The mean and variance of the moments of chi-squared when used as a test of homogeneity, when expectations are small. Biometrika. 1940;29:133–134.
   Google Scholar
• Huyut MA. A comparison of the transradial and the transfemoral approach in treatment of chronic total occlusions with similar lesion characteristics [Internet]. Anatol J Cardiol. 2018 cited 2022 Apr 21. https://www.journalagent.com/anatoljcardiol/pdfs/AJC-02779-ORIGINAL_INVESTIGATION-YAMAC.pdf
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobsen JC, Wetterslev J, Winkel P, et al. Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, et al. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jan;61(1):64–75. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorlund K, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38:276–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, et al. Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetterslev J, Jakobsen JC, Gluud C. Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMets DL, Lan KK. Interim analysis: the alpha spending function approach. Stat Med. 1994;13:1341–1352. discussion 1353-1356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, et al. In: User Manual for Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) [pdf] 2nd. 2017. Copenhagen:Copenhagen Trial Unit. 1–119. Downloadable from ctu.dk/tsa. Accessed on: 07/ 12/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Mb M, Tj V. How to report E-values for meta-analyses: recommended improvements and additions to the new GRADE approach [Internet]. Environ Int. 2022 cited 2023 Feb 22;160:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34954645/
   Google Scholar
• Mathur MB, VanderWeele TJ. Methods to Address confounding and other biases in meta-analyses: review and recommendations. Annu Rev Public Health. 2022;43:19–35.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: introducing the E-Value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He P, Yang Y, Qiao S, et al. Comparison of short- and medium-term clinical outcomes between transradial approach and transfemoral approach in a high-volume pci heart center in China. Lazzeri C, editor. PLOS ONE. 2015;10:e0118491.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raposo L, Madeira S, Teles RC, et al. Neurologic complications after transradial or transfemoral approach for diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization: a propensity score analysis of 16,710 cases from a single centre prospective registry: transradial approach and neurologic complications. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:61–70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Matějka J, Varvařovský I, Tužil J, et al. Accession site does not influence the risk of stroke after diagnostic coronary angiography or intervention: results from a large prospective registry. Cerebrovasc Dis Extra. 2021;11:122–130.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ratib K, Mamas MA, Routledge HC, et al. Influence of access site choice on incidence of neurologic complications after percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2013;165:317–324.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Staszczak B, Malinowski KP, Wańha W, et al. Frequency and predictors of diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention related to stroke. Kardiol Pol. 2021;79:1099–1106.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cruden NLM, Teh CH, Starkey IR, et al. Reduced vascular complications and length of stay with transradial rescue angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;70:670–675.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaffe R, Hong T, Sharieff W, et al. Comparison of radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;69:815–820.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pristipino C, Trani C, Nazzaro MS, et al. Major improvement of percutaneous cardiovascular procedure outcomes with radial artery catheterisation: results from the PREVAIL study. Heart. 2009;95:476–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deftereos S, Giannopoulos G, Raisakis K, et al. Transradial access as first choice for primary percutaneous coronary interventions: experience from atertiary hospital in Athens. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2011;52(2):111–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rodriguez-Leor O, Fernandez-Nofrerias E, Carrillo X, et al. Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock: a single-center experience. Am Heart J. 2013;165:280–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dangoisse V, Guédès A, Gabriel L, et al. Full conversion from transfemoral to transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions results in a similar success rate and a rapid reduction of in-hospital cardiac and vascular major events. EuroIntervention. 2013;9:345–352.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kwok CS, Kontopantelis E, Myint PK, et al. Stroke following percutaneous coronary intervention: type-specific incidence, outcomes and determinants seen by the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society 2007–12. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:1618–1628.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reifart J, Göhring S, Albrecht A, et al. Acceptance and safety of femoral versus radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): results from a large monitor-controlled German registry (QuIK). BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022;22:7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Viera AJ. Odds ratios and risk ratios: what’s the difference and why does it matter? South Med J. 2008;101:730–734.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dukkipati S, O’Neill WW, Harjai KJ, et al. Characteristics of cerebrovascular accidents after percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1161–1167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andò G, Gragnano F, Calabrò P, et al. Radial vs femoral access for the prevention of acute kidney injury (AKI) after coronary angiography or intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Off J Soc Card Angiogr Interv. 2018;92:E518–E526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tj V, Commentary: MM. Developing best-practice guidelines for the reporting of E-values [Internet]. Int J Epidemiol. 2020 cited 2023 Feb 22;49:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32743656/
   Google Scholar
• Rashid M, Lawson C, Potts J, et al. Incidence, determinants, and outcomes of left and right radial access use in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the United Kingdom: a national perspective using the BCIS dataset. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1021–1033.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar