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

• Published in: PloS one 2014-05, Vol.9 (5), p.e96127-e96127
• Main Authors: Piccolo, Raffaele, Galasso, Gennaro, Capuano, Ernesto, De Luca, Stefania, Esposito, Giovanni, Trimarco, Bruno, Piscione, Federico
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Access control; Acute Coronary Syndrome - surgery; Acute coronary syndromes; Analysis; Angioplasty; Balloon angioplasty; Bias; Bleeding; Cardiac patients; Cardiology; Catheterization; Clinical trials; Complications; Confidence intervals; Coronary heart disease; Death; Electrocardiography; Female; Femoral Artery - surgery; Health aspects; Heart attacks; Heart diseases; Humans; Intervention; Intubation; Male; Medicine and Health Sciences; Meta-analysis; Mortality; Patients; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods; Radial Artery - surgery; Randomization; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression analysis; Risk; Sequential analysis; Statistical analysis; Studies; Treatment Outcome; Websites
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096127

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. 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