SynthesisSouthern medical journal2016
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Major Cardiovascular Outcomes for Radial Versus Femoral Access in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Synthesis in Southern medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical predictors and management for radial artery spasm: an Australian cross-sectional study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Association Between Radial Versus Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Long-Term Mortality.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Radial Access for Neurovascular Procedures.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2020Review
- Revascularization Strategies for Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Current cardiology reports · 2019Review
- Hand Laser Perfusion Imaging to Assess Radial Artery Patency: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2018Article
- Medicolegal implications of radial and femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in 2016: Focus on retroperitoneal hemorrhage.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2016Article
- Transradial approach in neurointervention: Part-I: Patient selection, preparation, and access site considerations.Journal of neurosciences in rural practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesRadial artery access (RA) for left heart catheterization and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective. Despite consistent data showing less bleeding complications compared with femoral artery access (FA), it continues to be underused in the United States, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in whom aggressive anticoagulation and platelet inhibition regimens are needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare major cardiovascular outcomes and safety endpoints in patients with ACS managed with PCI using radial versus femoral access.
methodsRandomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing RA versus FA in patients with ACS were analyzed. Our primary outcomes were mortality, major adverse cardiac event, major bleeding, and access-related complications. A fixed-effects model was used for the primary analyses.
resultsFifteen randomized controlled trials and 17 cohort studies involving 44,854 patients with ACS were identified. Compared with FA, RA was associated with a reduction in major bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.61, P < 0.001), access-related complications (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.39, P < 0.001), mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54-0.75, P < 0.001), and major adverse cardiac event (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.85, P < 0.001). These significant reductions were consistent across different study designs and clinical presentations.
conclusionsBased on this large meta-analysis, RA for primary PCI in the setting of ACS is associated with reduction in cardiac and safety endpoints when compared with FA in both urgent and elective procedures. This should encourage a wider adoption of this technique among centers and interventional cardiologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.