Left main percutaneous coronary intervention-Radial versus femoral access: A systematic analysis

Debate still occurs of the benefits of transradial access (TRA) versus transfemoral access (TFA), especially for complex percutaneous coronary interventions. Recent data has shown equivalent efficacy and improved safety outcomes with TRA.

To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis comparing procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of TRA versus TFA in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for left main (LM) disease.

We conducted an electronic database search of all published data for studies that compared TRA with TFA in patients undergoing PCI of LM disease. Event rates were compared using the odds ratio (OR) as a measure of effect size. Random-effects models were used to account for interstudy heterogeneity.

A total of 12 observational studies including 17,258 patients (TRA n = 7,971; TFA n = 9,287) were included. Compared to TFA, TRA was associated with a significant reduction in access site bleeding (OR = 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.04-0.26; I² = 0%; p < .0001), major bleeding (OR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.27-0.69; I² = 0%; p = .0005) or any bleeding episode (OR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.27-0.69; I² = 12%; p = .0004). Rates of access site or vascular complications (OR = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.17-0.40; I² = 0%; p < .00001) and in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31-0.79: I² = 11%; p = .004) were also lower in the TRA group. There were no significant differences in procedural outcomes between TRA and TFA except for a significant reduction in the rate of long-term target vessel revascularization (TVR) in the TRA group (OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.41-0.94: I² = 0%: p = .02). We further performed a subgroup analysis for unprotected left main PCI only, which showed a significant reduction in rates of any bleeding episode, lower access site or vascular complications, and in-hospital mortality with TRA as compared to TFA.

Patients undergoing PCI for LM disease via TRA have with less bleeding, reduced access site or vascular complications, reduced in-hospital mortality, comparable procedural success, and possibly better long-term clinical efficacy when compared to those undergoing the procedure via TFA.