The neuroradiology journal · 2024
Transradial artery access for carotid artery stenting: A pooled analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Batista Sávio, Oliveira Leonardo de Barros, Sousa Marcelo Porto, Pinheiro Agostinho C, Borges Jordana, Santana Laís, Bertani Raphael, Andreão Filipi Fim, Simões Adria, Almeida Filho José Alberto
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) through transradial access (TRA) is emerging as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy. However, the current evidence base is limited, mainly comprising single-center studies.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess the safety and effectiveness of TRA for CAS, providing evidence to support clinical decisions.
METHODS: We conducted searches on PUBMED, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases, including studies on TRA for CAS. Studies with fewer than 20 patients, non-primary outcomes, and non-full-text articles were excluded.
RESULTS: We analyzed 14 studies involving 1,166 patients who underwent CAS via TRA. Procedural success rate was high in 13 studies, with a 95% rate (95% CI; 92%-98%). Crossover to TFA access was observed in 12 studies at 6% (95% CI: 3%-9%). Transradial access failure was reported in four studies, with a rate of 0% (95% CI: 0%-0%). Cannulation failure resulted in a rate of 4% (95% CI: 2%-7%). Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion (ARAO) occurred at a rate of 2% based on eight studies (95% CI: 0%-5%). Forearm hematoma was reported in 10 studies, with an occurrence of 1% (95% CI: 0%-2%). Cerebral vascular attacks (CAV) within 30 days were assessed in 13 studies, indicating a 2% occurrence (95% CI: 1%-2%).
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that TRA for CAS yields promising outcomes with high success rates and low complication rates. Further research should focus on randomized controlled trials and long-term outcomes to validate and extend findings.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess the safety and effectiveness of TRA for CAS, providing evidence to support clinical decisions.
METHODS: We conducted searches on PUBMED, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases, including studies on TRA for CAS. Studies with fewer than 20 patients, non-primary outcomes, and non-full-text articles were excluded.
RESULTS: We analyzed 14 studies involving 1,166 patients who underwent CAS via TRA. Procedural success rate was high in 13 studies, with a 95% rate (95% CI; 92%-98%). Crossover to TFA access was observed in 12 studies at 6% (95% CI: 3%-9%). Transradial access failure was reported in four studies, with a rate of 0% (95% CI: 0%-0%). Cannulation failure resulted in a rate of 4% (95% CI: 2%-7%). Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion (ARAO) occurred at a rate of 2% based on eight studies (95% CI: 0%-5%). Forearm hematoma was reported in 10 studies, with an occurrence of 1% (95% CI: 0%-2%). Cerebral vascular attacks (CAV) within 30 days were assessed in 13 studies, indicating a 2% occurrence (95% CI: 1%-2%).
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that TRA for CAS yields promising outcomes with high success rates and low complication rates. Further research should focus on randomized controlled trials and long-term outcomes to validate and extend findings.