Meta-Analysis Comparing Distal Radial Versus Traditional Radial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Angiography.
Publication/Presentation Date
5-1-2022
Abstract
Data comparing outcomes of distal radial (DR) and traditional radial (TR) access of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited. Online databases including Medline and Cochrane Central databases were explored to identify studies that compared DR and TR access for PCI. The primary outcome was the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO) and access failure. Secondary outcomes included access site hematoma, access site bleeding, access site pain, radial artery spasm, radial artery dissection, and crossover. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) with a random-effect model, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p < 0.05 were used for statistical significance. Metaregression was performed for 16 studies with 9,973 (DR 4,750 and TR 5,523) patients were included. Compared with TR, DR was associated with lower risk of RAO (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.90, I
Volume
170
First Page
31
Last Page
39
ISSN
1879-1913
Published In/Presented At
Sattar, Y., Talib, U., Faisaluddin, M., Song, D., Lak, H. M., Laghari, A., Khan, M. Z., Ullah, W., Elgendy, I. Y., Balla, S., Daggubati, R., Kawsara, A., Jneid, H., Alraies, C. M., & Alam, M. (2022). Meta-Analysis Comparing Distal Radial Versus Traditional Radial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Angiography. The American journal of cardiology, 170, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.01.019
Disciplines
Medicine and Health Sciences
PubMedID
35248389
Department(s)
Cardiology Division, Fellows and Residents
Document Type
Article