Transradial versus transfemoral access in carotid artery stenting: A meta-analysis

Author:

Batista Sávio1,Oliveira Leonardo de Barros2ORCID,Borges Jordana3,Pinheiro Agostinho C4ORCID,Filho José Alberto Almeida5,Santana Laís Silva6ORCID,Bertani Raphael7,Koester Stefan8,Hanel Ricardo9ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

2. Faculty of Medicine, State University of Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil

3. Independent Researcher

4. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

5. Department of Neurosurgery, Municipal Hospital Miguel Couto, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

6. Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

7. Department of Neurosurgery, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

8. School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

9. Department of Cerebrovascular and Endovascular Surgery, Baptist Neurologic Institute and Lyerly Neurosurgery, Jacksonville, FL, USA

Abstract

Background The carotid artery stenting (CAS) has two common access sites: transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA). However, there's no definitive answer to which one is superior. Objective Compare TRA and TFA for the CAS. Methods A systematic review of the literature of studies reporting both TRA and TFA results was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase were queried. Results The meta-analysis examined nine studies comprising 7513 patients who underwent CAS. Of these, 6750 patients had TFA (90%), while 763 had TRA (10%). There was no significant difference in procedure success rates between TRA and TFA, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.99 (6/9; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; I² = 9%, fixed effects). However, cross-over to TFA was more frequent in TRA (odds ratio (OR) 10.37 (6/9; 95% CI 5.18 to 20.77; I² = 17%, fixed effects)). There were no significant differences in terms of major access complications (RR = 0.88 (7/9; 95% CI: 0.29 to 2.63; I² = 0, fixed effects)), total access complications (RR = 1.10 (6/9; 95% CI: 0.56 to 2.15; I² = 7%, fixed effects)), and mean difference in length of stay (Mean difference of −0.08 (3/9; 95% CI −0.18 to 0.02; I² = 0%, fixed effects)). Conclusion There were no significant differences between TFA and TRA in terms of procedure success rates, time, complications, and length of stay, although cross-over to TFA was more common in TRA cases.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3