ABSTRACT
To compare the feasibility, efficiency and safety of coronary angiography (CAG) and interventional procedures between the radial and femoral catheterization approaches in Chinese population using systematic review and meta-analysis, we conducted a search of the studies comparing radial and femoral catheterization approaches in patients underwent either CAG or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Chinese population. Fixed-effect relative risk (RR) for the primary end points and the second end points were compared between the two approaches. A total of 27 studies (n=8,749 patients) were finally included in the analysis. The success rate of radial approach was slightly lower than that of femoral approach in patients receiving CAG (P=0.004), but similar in patients receiving a further PCI treatment (P=0.11). The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) was similar between two approaches (P=0.27). Radial catheterization had a significantly lower rate of puncture site complications (P<0.00001), but a lower rate of puncture success rate (P=0.02). In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), there was no difference in neither the risk of MACEs nor PCI success rate between two approaches (P=0.23 and 0.45, respectively), but a board line decrease of puncture success rate was observed in radial catheterization group (P=0.04). There were no significant differences in the volumes of contrast media, X-ray exposure time and operation time between the two approaches (all P>0.05). Thus, we concluded that radial approach is a safe method for CAG or PCI compared to traditional femoral approach in Chinese population due to their similar success rate of the procedure and risk of MACEs, and a decreased risk of puncture site complications.
