Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Safety of transradial access compared to transfemoral access with hemostatic devices (vessel plugs and suture devices) after percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Yashasvi Chugh
  • , Chirag Bavishi
  • , Mohammad K. Mojadidi
  • , Islam Y. Elgendy
  • , Robert T. Faillace
  • , Emmanouil S. Brilakis
  • , Jacqueline Tamis-Holland
  • , Mamas Mamas
  • , Sanjay Kumar Chugh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives: Comparing the safety of transradial access (TRA) and conventional hemostasis with transfemoral access (TFA) and vascular closure devices (vessel plugs and suture devices) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Background: TRA for PCIs is associated with fewer bleeding and vascular complications compared with TFA. Vascular closure devices (VCD) are often used post TFA to establish early hemostasis and mitigate bleeding risk. However, the comparative efficacy of TRA and TFA with VCDs remains controversial. Method: Electronic database were systematically searched for all pertinent studies from inception through January 2020. Randomized studies, registry data, and abstracts published in peer-reviewed indexed journals were included. The short-term outcomes: major bleeding, vascular complications, and closure device failure were evaluated. Random-effects model was used to pool individual study results. Results: Twelve studies (8 observational, 4 randomized) including 7,961 patients (TRA: 3,121 patients, TFA and vessel plugs: 3,157 patients, TFA & suture devices: 1,683 patients) were included in the analysis. Major bleeding was significantly lower with TRA compared with TFA and vessel plugs (odds ratio [OR] 0.22, 95%CI 0.11–0.44, p <.00001) and TFA & suture devices (OR 0.12, 95%CI 0.05–0.28, p <.00001). Vascular complications were significantly lower with TRA compared to TFA and vessel plugs (OR 0.25, 95%CI 0.13–0.49, p <.0001) and TFA & suture devices (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.04–0.41, p = 0.0005). Rates of closure device failure were lower for TRA compared to TFA & suture devices (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.04–0.41, p =.0005), but similar to TFA & vessel plugs (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.01–4.28, p =.33), although confidence intervals were wide. All analysis revealed a low to moderate level of heterogeneity. Conclusion: TRA with conventional hemostasis is safer than TFA with hemostasis via vessel plugs or suture devices and should be considered best practice.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)285-295
Number of pages11
JournalCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume96
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2020

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Funding

E.S.B.: received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, American Heart Association (associate editor Circulation), Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), CSI, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, InfraRedx, Medtronic, Siemens, and Teleflex; research support from Regeneron and Siemens. Shareholder: MHI Ventures. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funders
Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation
MHI Ventures
American the American Heart Association
Siemens USA
Medtronic
Center for Social Inclusion
GE Healthcare
Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation
Abbott Vascular
InfraReDx
Biotronik Incorporated

    Keywords

    • closure device
    • meta-analysis
    • transfemoral
    • transradial

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
    • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Safety of transradial access compared to transfemoral access with hemostatic devices (vessel plugs and suture devices) after percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this