ReviewThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2025
Transradial vs transfemoral secondary access outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a minimally invasive procedure with associated risks that are influenced by the choice of secondary vascular access used. The impact of transradial secondary access (TRSA) compared to transfemoral secondary access (TFSA) on adverse events remains uncertain. Therefore, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to compare procedural complications between TRSA and TFSA in TAVR.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing TRSA and TFSA in patients undergoing TAVR. The primary endpoints were 30-day rates of each of the following: access-related bleeding, access-related vascular complications, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), acute kidney injury (AKI stage III or higher), and all-cause mortality. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses stratified by primary access route were performed to assess the consistency of the findings.
resultsSeven studies with 6327 patients were included, comprising of six observational studies and one randomized controlled trial TRSA was associated with significantly lower odds of mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI [0.39, 0.78], p = 0.0007), stroke/TIA (OR 0.58, 95% CI [0.39, 0.87], p = 0.009), major/life-threatening bleeding (OR 0.50, 95% CI [0.30, 0.83], p = 0.008), and major vascular complications (OR 0.59, 95% CI [0.41, 0.85], p = 0.004). Additionally, we stratified outcomes for patients undergoing transfemoral primary access (TFPA) to determine whether the primary access route influences results. The transradial group demonstrated significantly lower odds of 30-day all-cause mortality (OR 0.49, 95% CI [0.28, 0.87], p = 0.01), and 30-day minor bleeding (OR 0.48, 95% CI [0.27, 0.86], p = 0.01).
conclusionsKey limitations included predominance of non-randomized studies and high heterogeneity in some outcomes. In patients undergoing TAVR, TRSA is associated with significantly lower complications compared to TFSA, suggesting it may be a superior alternative.
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.