Logo image
Back
Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Wassef Karrowni, Ankur Vyas, Bria Giacomino, Marin Schweizer, Amy Blevins, Saket Girotra and Phillip A Horwitz
JACC. Cardiovascular interventions, Vol.6(8), pp.814-823
08/2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.04.010
PMID: 23968700
url
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.04.010View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

This study sought to determine the safety and efficacy of radial access compared with femoral access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Numerous randomized controlled trials, including several new studies, have compared outcomes of these approaches in the context of primary PCI for STEMI patients with inconclusive results. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare outcomes in STEMI patients undergoing radial versus femoral access for primary PCI. Primary outcomes were death and major bleeding evaluated at the longest available follow-up. Secondary outcomes included access site bleeding, stroke, and procedure time. Twelve studies (N = 5,055) were included. All trials were conducted in centers experienced with both approaches. Compared with femoral approach, radial approach was associated with decreased risk of mortality (2.7% vs. 4.7%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 0.76; p < 0.001) and decreased risk of major bleeding (1.4% vs. 2.9%; OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.85; p = 0.01). Radial access was also associated with reduction in relative risk of access site bleeding (2.1% vs. 5.6%; OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.50; p < 0.001). Stroke risk was similar between both approaches (0.5% vs. 0.5%; OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.54; p = 0.87). The procedure time was slightly longer in the radial group than in the femoral group (mean difference: 1.52 min; 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.70, p = 0.01). In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, the radial approach is associated with favorable outcomes and should be the preferred approach for experienced radial operators.
 Myocardial Infarction - diagnosis Myocardial Infarction - mortality Risk Assessment Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - mortality Humans Middle Aged Risk Factors Cardiac Catheterization - adverse effects Male Treatment Outcome Cardiac Catheterization - mortality Chi-Square Distribution Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Myocardial Infarction - therapy Radial Artery Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods Cardiac Catheterization - methods Female Femoral Artery Aged Odds Ratio Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - adverse effects

Details

Metrics

19 Record Views
159 Times Cited - Web of Science
Logo image