Elfil Mohamed, Ghaith Hazem S, Jain Ankita, Spirollari Eris, Sacknovitz Ariel, Elmashad Ahmed, Aladawi Mohammad, Salem Mohamed M, Najdawi Zaid, El-Ghanem Mohammad, Khandelwal Priyank, Jabbour Pascal, Aljehani Hosam, Santarelli Justin, Gandhi Chirag D, Al-Mufti Fawaz
From the Department of Neurology, University of Miami/Jackson Health System, Miami, FL.
Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Cardiol Rev. 2025;33(5):382-393. doi: 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000923. Epub 2025 May 1.
Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is the standard treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). Transradial access (TRA) has emerged as an alternative to traditional transfemoral access (TFA), showing promise in reducing access-site complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the procedural and clinical outcomes of TRA versus TFA for EVT in AIS-LVO patients. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we searched electronic databases for studies comparing TRA and TFA in EVT. Eligible studies, comprising 2138 patients, were analyzed for outcomes, including successful and complete recanalization, favorable functional outcomes [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2), access-to-perfusion time, first-pass reperfusion, mean number of passes, and complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias Assessment tool-2. Both TRA and TFA groups demonstrated comparable rates of successful recanalization, complete recanalization, and favorable functional outcomes at 90 days. Procedural metrics, including first-pass reperfusion, mean number of passes, and access-to-perfusion time, showed no statistically significant differences between the 2 approaches. TRA exhibited fewer access-site complications, but rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were similar. This meta-analysis suggests that TRA is a safe and non-inferior alternative to TFA for EVT in AIS-LVO patients, potentially reducing access-site complications. However, caution is needed due to the observational nature of most studies. Future randomized trials are essential to provide robust evidence for the comparative efficacy of TRA and TFA, addressing anatomical variations and procedural nuances.
血管内血栓切除术(EVT)是治疗由大血管闭塞(LVO)引起的急性缺血性卒中(AIS)的标准方法。经桡动脉入路(TRA)已成为传统经股动脉入路(TFA)的替代方法,在减少穿刺部位并发症方面显示出前景。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在全面评估TRA与TFA用于AIS-LVO患者EVT的手术和临床结局。按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南,我们在电子数据库中检索了比较EVT中TRA与TFA的研究。对纳入的2138例患者的研究进行结局分析,包括成功再通和完全再通、良好功能结局[改良Rankin量表(mRS)0-2]、穿刺至灌注时间、首次通过再灌注、平均通过次数和并发症。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表和偏倚风险评估工具-2评估偏倚风险。TRA组和TFA组在90天时成功再通、完全再通和良好功能结局的发生率相当。包括首次通过再灌注、平均通过次数和穿刺至灌注时间在内的手术指标在两种方法之间无统计学显著差异。TRA的穿刺部位并发症较少,但症状性颅内出血的发生率相似。本荟萃分析表明,对于AIS-LVO患者的EVT,TRA是TFA的一种安全且非劣效的替代方法,可能减少穿刺部位并发症。然而,由于大多数研究的观察性性质,仍需谨慎。未来的随机试验对于为TRA和TFA的比较疗效提供有力证据、解决解剖变异和手术细微差别至关重要。