World journal of cardiology · 2021
Efficacy and safety of distal radial approach for cardiac catheterization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Izumida Toshihide, Watanabe Jun, Yoshida Ryo, Kotani Kazuhiko
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The traditional radial approach (RA) is recommended as the standard method for coronary angiography (CAG), while a distal RA (DRA) has been recently used for CAG.
AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of the DRA vs RA during CAG.
METHODS: The following databases were searched through December 2020: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Individual randomized-controlled trials for adult patients undergoing cardiac catheterization were included. The primary outcomes were the successful cannulation rate and the incidence of radial artery spasm (RAS) and radial artery occlusion (RAO). Study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment were independently performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS: Three randomized control trials and 13 registered trials were identified. The two approaches showed similar successful cannulation rates [risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-1.13]. The DRA did not decrease RAS (RR 0.43, 95%CI: 0.08-2.49) and RAO (RR 0.48, 95%CI: 0.18-1.29). Patients with the DRA had a shorter hemostasis time in comparison to those with the RA (mean difference -6.64, 95%CI: -10.37 to -2.90). The evidence of certainty was low.
CONCLUSION: For CAG, the DRA would be safer than the RA with comparable cannulation rates. Given the limited data, additional research, including studies with standard protocols, is necessary.
AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of the DRA vs RA during CAG.
METHODS: The following databases were searched through December 2020: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Individual randomized-controlled trials for adult patients undergoing cardiac catheterization were included. The primary outcomes were the successful cannulation rate and the incidence of radial artery spasm (RAS) and radial artery occlusion (RAO). Study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment were independently performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS: Three randomized control trials and 13 registered trials were identified. The two approaches showed similar successful cannulation rates [risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-1.13]. The DRA did not decrease RAS (RR 0.43, 95%CI: 0.08-2.49) and RAO (RR 0.48, 95%CI: 0.18-1.29). Patients with the DRA had a shorter hemostasis time in comparison to those with the RA (mean difference -6.64, 95%CI: -10.37 to -2.90). The evidence of certainty was low.
CONCLUSION: For CAG, the DRA would be safer than the RA with comparable cannulation rates. Given the limited data, additional research, including studies with standard protocols, is necessary.