ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Efficacy and safety of transradial versus transfemoral approach for secondary access in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) requires a primary access to deliver the valve and a secondary access for angiographic guidance. Although transfemoral access (TFA) is most commonly employed, alternative access sites are gaining traction. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of transradial (TRA) and TF secondary access. Methods: A literature search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov from their inception to January 2025. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the Mantel-Haenzel method for dichotomous outcomes. Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the inverse variance method for continuous outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken. Results: Seven studies, with 15 283 patients, were included. TRA had a significantly lower risk of vascular complications (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25-0.89), major vascular complications (RR 0.45, 95% CI:0.27-0.73), bleeding (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36-0.78), major bleeding (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.90), stroke (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99), all-cause mortality (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36-0.57), and acute kidney injury (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38-0.60). Both groups were comparable in terms of life-threatening bleeding, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker requirement, length of hospital stay, contrast volume, procedure time, and fluoroscopy time. Conclusion: TRA is associated with superior outcomes compared to TFA for secondary access in TAVI. Furthermore, large-scale randomized trials are needed to clarify the most optimal access sites for TAVI.
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.