SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Safety and efficacy of radial access versus femoral access for rotational atherectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRotational atherectomy has been performed using both radial and femoral access over the years, but there is a lack of consensus on the safety and efficacy of these access sites.
methodsPubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched until May 2024 for studies comparing the radial and femoral approaches in patients undergoing rotational atherectomy. The primary outcome was major vascular site bleeding. Secondary outcomes included short-term mortality, long-term mortality, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), acute stent thrombosis, procedural success, procedural time, and hospital stay. Generic inverse variance (GIV) was used to pool the risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for the continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsTwelve studies including 15,700 patients with a mean age of 77.77 years in the radial group and 74.04 years in the femoral group, who had undergone rotational atherectomy, were included in the analysis. For the outcome of major vascular site bleeding, there was a significantly lower risk (RR: 0.23; 95% CI [0.12, 0.41]; p < 0.00001) in the radial group as compared to the femoral group. From the secondary outcomes, radial access was found to have significantly lower MACE (RR:0.80; 95% CI [0.68, 0.93]; p = 0.004), shorter procedural time (MD: -6.95; 95% CI [-11.52, -2.38], p = 0.003) and hospital stay (MD: -2.8; 95% CI [-5.56, -0.04], p = 0.05) as compared to femoral group. In contrast, all the other secondary outcomes were found to be insignificant.
conclusionRotational atherectomy using the radial approach has a significantly lower rate of major vascular site bleeding and MACE and is associated with significantly shorter procedural time and hospital stay.
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.