Coronary artery disease · 2024
Distal versus traditional radial access in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Bittar Vinicius, Trevisan Thierry, Clemente Mariana R C, Pontes Guilherme, Felix Nicole, Gomes Wilton F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Distal radial access (DRA) is a well-tolerated and effective alternative to traditional radial access (TRA) for coronary procedures. However, the comparative value of these modalities remains unknown in the emergency setting, particularly in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
OBJECTIVE: To compare DRA versus TRA for emergency coronary procedures through a meta-analysis.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed , Embase , and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing DRA versus TRA in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). All statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model.
RESULTS: We included four studies comprising 543 patients undergoing emergency CAG or PCI, of whom 447 (82.3%) had STEMI. As compared with TRA, DRA was associated with lower radial artery occlusion rates (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.72) and shorter hemostasis time (MD, -4.23 h; 95% CI, -6.23 to 2.13). There was no significant difference between modalities in terms of puncture failure (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.31-6.19), crossover access (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.42-4.44), puncture time (SMD, 0.33; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.81), procedure time (MD, 0.97 min; 95% CI, -5.19 to 7.13), or rates of cannulation success (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.06). In terms of other periprocedural complications, there were no differences between both groups. These findings remained consistent in a subgroup analysis of patients with STEMI.
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, DRA was superior to TRA in terms of radial artery occlusion and hemostasis time, with similar rates of periprocedural complications.
OBJECTIVE: To compare DRA versus TRA for emergency coronary procedures through a meta-analysis.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed , Embase , and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing DRA versus TRA in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). All statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model.
RESULTS: We included four studies comprising 543 patients undergoing emergency CAG or PCI, of whom 447 (82.3%) had STEMI. As compared with TRA, DRA was associated with lower radial artery occlusion rates (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.72) and shorter hemostasis time (MD, -4.23 h; 95% CI, -6.23 to 2.13). There was no significant difference between modalities in terms of puncture failure (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.31-6.19), crossover access (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.42-4.44), puncture time (SMD, 0.33; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.81), procedure time (MD, 0.97 min; 95% CI, -5.19 to 7.13), or rates of cannulation success (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.06). In terms of other periprocedural complications, there were no differences between both groups. These findings remained consistent in a subgroup analysis of patients with STEMI.
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, DRA was superior to TRA in terms of radial artery occlusion and hemostasis time, with similar rates of periprocedural complications.