ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Debate still occurs of the benefits of transradial access (TRA) versus transfemoral access (TFA), especially for complex percutaneous coronary interventions. Recent data has shown equivalent efficacy and improved safety outcomes with TRA. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis comparing procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of TRA versus TFA in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for left main (LM) disease. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search of all published data for studies that compared TRA with TFA in patients undergoing PCI of LM disease. Event rates were compared using the odds ratio (OR) as a measure of effect size. Random-effects models were used to account for interstudy heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 12 observational studies including 17,258 patients (TRA n = 7,971; TFA n = 9,287) were included. Compared to TFA, TRA was associated with a significant reduction in access site bleeding (OR = 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.04-0.26; I2 = 0%; p < .0001), major bleeding (OR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.27-0.69; I2 = 0%; p = .0005) or any bleeding episode (OR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.27-0.69; I2 = 12%; p = .0004). Rates of access site or vascular complications (OR = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.17-0.40; I2 = 0%; p < .00001) and in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31-0.79: I2 = 11%; p = .004) were also lower in the TRA group. There were no significant differences in procedural outcomes between TRA and TFA except for a significant reduction in the rate of long-term target vessel revascularization (TVR) in the TRA group (OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.41-0.94: I2 = 0%: p = .02). We further performed a subgroup analysis for unprotected left main PCI only, which showed a significant reduction in rates of any bleeding episode, lower access site or vascular complications, and in-hospital mortality with TRA as compared to TFA. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing PCI for LM disease via TRA have with less bleeding, reduced access site or vascular complications, reduced in-hospital mortality, comparable procedural success, and possibly better long-term clinical efficacy when compared to those undergoing the procedure via TFA.
Subject(s)
Catheterization, Peripheral , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Femoral Artery , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Radial Artery , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Catheterization, Peripheral/adverse effects , Catheterization, Peripheral/mortality , Coronary Artery Disease/mortality , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Observational Studies as Topic , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/mortality , Punctures , Risk Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-surgical-risk patients. BACKGROUND: TAVR is proven to be safe and effective in patients with high- and intermediate-risk aortic stenosis. However, there is limited data on the safety and efficacy of TAVR in patients with low surgical risk. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search of all published data for studies that compared TAVR to SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients (mean society for thoracic surgery [STS] score <4% and/or logistic EuroScore <10%) and reported on subsequent all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, stroke rates, and other outcomes of interest. Event rates were compared with a forest plot of odds ratio using a random-effects model assuming interstudy heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of seven studies (n = 6,293 patients; TAVR = 2,912; and SAVR = 3,381) were included in the final analysis. There was no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR in terms of all-cause mortality (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.50-1.36, I2 = 51%), cardiac mortality (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.32-1.02, I2 = 0%), new pacemaker implantation (OR = 3.11; 95% CI 0.58-16.60, I2 = 89%), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL; OR 3.50; 95% CI 0.64-19.10, I2 = 54%) and rate of stroke (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.34-1.15, I2 = 39%) at 1-year follow-up. TAVR was found to have a significantly lower incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10-0.24, I2 = 38%) as compared to SAVR. CONCLUSION: The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate similar rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and stroke at 1-year follow-up in patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR. TAVR is associated with a lower incidence of AF relative to SAVR. However, there was a significantly higher incidence of PVL with TAVR compared to SAVR.
