Cargando…

Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND: Transfemoral approach (TFA) remains the most common vascular access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in many countries. However, in the last years several randomized trials compared transradial approach (TRA) with TFA in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but only f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Piccolo, Raffaele, Galasso, Gennaro, Capuano, Ernesto, De Luca, Stefania, Esposito, Giovanni, Trimarco, Bruno, Piscione, Federico
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24820096
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096127
_version_ 1782480055272734720
author Piccolo, Raffaele
Galasso, Gennaro
Capuano, Ernesto
De Luca, Stefania
Esposito, Giovanni
Trimarco, Bruno
Piscione, Federico
author_facet Piccolo, Raffaele
Galasso, Gennaro
Capuano, Ernesto
De Luca, Stefania
Esposito, Giovanni
Trimarco, Bruno
Piscione, Federico
author_sort Piccolo, Raffaele
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Transfemoral approach (TFA) remains the most common vascular access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in many countries. However, in the last years several randomized trials compared transradial approach (TRA) with TFA in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but only few studies were powered to estimate rare events. The aim of the current study was to clarify whether TRA is superior to TFA approach in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A meta-analysis, meta-regression and trial sequential analysis of safety and efficacy of TRA in ACS setting was performed. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medline, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, scientific session abstracts and relevant websites were searched. Data concerning the study design, patient characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were extracted. The primary endpoint was death. Secondary endpoints were: major bleeding and vascular complications. Outcomes were assessed within 30 days. Eleven randomized trials involving 9,202 patients were included. Compared with TFA, TRA significantly reduced the risk of death (odds ratio [OR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53–0.94; p = 0.016), but this finding was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis, indicating that sufficient evidence had not been yet reached. Furthermore, TRA compared with TFA reduced the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41–0.88; p = 0.008) and vascular complications (OR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.28–0.46; p<0.001); these findings were supported by trial sequential analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, a lower risk of death was observed with TRA. Nevertheless, the association between mortality and TRA in ACS setting should be interpreted with caution because it is based on insufficient evidence. However, because of the clinical relevance associated with major bleeding and vascular complications reduction, TRA should be recommended as first-choice vascular access in patients with ACS undergoing cardiac catheterization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4018335
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40183352014-05-16 Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Piccolo, Raffaele Galasso, Gennaro Capuano, Ernesto De Luca, Stefania Esposito, Giovanni Trimarco, Bruno Piscione, Federico PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Transfemoral approach (TFA) remains the most common vascular access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in many countries. However, in the last years several randomized trials compared transradial approach (TRA) with TFA in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but only few studies were powered to estimate rare events. The aim of the current study was to clarify whether TRA is superior to TFA approach in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A meta-analysis, meta-regression and trial sequential analysis of safety and efficacy of TRA in ACS setting was performed. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medline, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, scientific session abstracts and relevant websites were searched. Data concerning the study design, patient characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were extracted. The primary endpoint was death. Secondary endpoints were: major bleeding and vascular complications. Outcomes were assessed within 30 days. Eleven randomized trials involving 9,202 patients were included. Compared with TFA, TRA significantly reduced the risk of death (odds ratio [OR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53–0.94; p = 0.016), but this finding was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis, indicating that sufficient evidence had not been yet reached. Furthermore, TRA compared with TFA reduced the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41–0.88; p = 0.008) and vascular complications (OR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.28–0.46; p<0.001); these findings were supported by trial sequential analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, a lower risk of death was observed with TRA. Nevertheless, the association between mortality and TRA in ACS setting should be interpreted with caution because it is based on insufficient evidence. However, because of the clinical relevance associated with major bleeding and vascular complications reduction, TRA should be recommended as first-choice vascular access in patients with ACS undergoing cardiac catheterization. Public Library of Science 2014-05-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4018335/ /pubmed/24820096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096127 Text en © 2014 Piccolo et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Piccolo, Raffaele
Galasso, Gennaro
Capuano, Ernesto
De Luca, Stefania
Esposito, Giovanni
Trimarco, Bruno
Piscione, Federico
Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_fullStr Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full_unstemmed Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_short Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_sort transradial versus transfemoral approach in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24820096
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096127
work_keys_str_mv AT piccoloraffaele transradialversustransfemoralapproachinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT galassogennaro transradialversustransfemoralapproachinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT capuanoernesto transradialversustransfemoralapproachinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT delucastefania transradialversustransfemoralapproachinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT espositogiovanni transradialversustransfemoralapproachinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT trimarcobruno transradialversustransfemoralapproachinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT piscionefederico transradialversustransfemoralapproachinpatientsundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforacutecoronarysyndromeametaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials