Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION

PCI of ULMS is frequently performed through TFA because of technical complexity and safety concern. Studies have shown comparable efficacy and safety of TRA versus TFA, however, these studies are few in number. We intended to compare the clinical outcomes between transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (ULMS) by performing a meta-analysis.

METHOD

A systematic search of database, including, PubMed, Web of Science, Google scholar and Cochrane Database were performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were included comparing "TRA" versus "TFA" in patients undergoing PCI in ULMS. The primary outcome was a procedural success rate. Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, access site complications, in-hospital and long term: major adverse cardiac events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular mortality.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the analysis. The procedural success rate was 97.3% and there was no statistically significant difference between TRA and TFA groups (OR, 1.41 [CI 0.64, 3.12], I = 26%). The rates of access site complications (OR, 0.17 [CI 0.07, 0.41], I = 16%), major bleeding (OR, 0.39 [CI 0.17, 0.86], I = 0%) and all-cause mortality (OR, 0.28 [CI 0.12, 0.64], I = 0%) were lower in the TRA group. There were no significant differences in in-hospital and long term cardiovascular mortality, MI and MACE between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to TFA, TRA is associated with reduced bleeding and access site complications, with similar procedural success rate in patients undergoing PCI of ULMS.