Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, No. 138, Sheng-Li Road, 70428, Tainan, Taiwan.
School of Medicine for International Students, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Clin Neuroradiol. 2024 Mar;34(1):3-12. doi: 10.1007/s00062-023-01315-w. Epub 2023 Jul 4.
There is a growing interest in performing coronary artery and neurovascular interventions via the radial artery; however, few studies have examined the outcomes of transradial carotid stenting. Therefore, our study aimed to compare cerebrovascular outcomes and crossover rates in carotid stenting between transradial and traditional transfemoral approaches.
A systematic review was performed by searching three electronic databases from inception to June 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. In addition, random effect meta-analysis was used to pool the odds ratios (ORs) for stroke, transient ischemic attack, major adverse cardiac events, death, major vascular access site complications, and procedure crossover rates between the transradial and transfemoral approaches.
A total of 6 studies were included involving a total of n = 567 transradial and n = 6176 transfemoral procedures. The ORs for stroke, transient ischemic attack, and major adverse cardiac events were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, CI 0.72-2.86, I = 0), 0.51 (95% CI 0.17-1.54, I = 0), and 1.08 (95% CI 0.62-1.86, I = 0), respectively. Neither the major vascular access site complication rate (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.32-3.87, I = 0) nor crossover rate (OR 3.94, 95% CI 0.62-25.11, I = 57%) showed statistically significant differences between the two approaches.
The modest quality of the data suggested comparable procedural outcomes between the transradial and transfemoral approaches when performing carotid stenting; however, high level evidence regarding postoperative brain images and risk of stroke in transradial carotid stenting are lacking. Therefore, it is reasonable for interventionists to weigh up the risks of neurological events and potential benefits, including fewer access site complications, before choosing the radial or femoral arteries as access sites. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials are imperative.
经桡动脉行冠状动脉和神经血管介入术的应用日益受到关注;然而,关于经桡动脉颈动脉支架置入术的研究结果较少。因此,本研究旨在比较经桡动脉和传统经股动脉途径行颈动脉支架置入术的脑血管转归和交叉率。
按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目的规定,从创建至 2022 年 6 月,我们在三个电子数据库中进行了系统检索。此外,还使用随机效应荟萃分析来汇总经桡动脉和经股动脉途径之间的卒中、短暂性脑缺血发作、主要不良心脏事件、死亡、主要血管入路部位并发症和手术交叉率的优势比(OR)。
共纳入 6 项研究,共纳入 n=567 例经桡动脉和 n=6176 例经股动脉手术。卒中、短暂性脑缺血发作和主要不良心脏事件的 OR 分别为 1.43(95%置信区间,0.72-2.86,I=0)、0.51(95%CI 0.17-1.54,I=0)和 1.08(95%CI 0.62-1.86,I=0)。主要血管入路部位并发症发生率(OR 1.11,95%CI 0.32-3.87,I=0)和交叉率(OR 3.94,95%CI 0.62-25.11,I=57%)均无统计学差异。
由于数据质量较差,在进行颈动脉支架置入术时,经桡动脉和经股动脉途径的手术结果可能相似;然而,经桡动脉颈动脉支架置入术后脑影像和卒中风险的高级别证据仍缺乏。因此,介入医生在选择桡动脉或股动脉作为入路时,权衡神经事件的风险和潜在获益是合理的,包括较少的入路部位并发症。未来需要进行大规模的随机对照试验。