Evidence Hub

Procedural Outcomes With Femoral, Radial, Distal Radial, and Ulnar Access for Coronary Angiography: A Network Meta-Analysis

M. Maqsood, Celina M. Yong, Sunil V. Rao, Mauricio G. Cohen, Samir B. Pancholy, S. Bangalore

Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions, 2024

38 participants · 22 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Radial artery access for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces the risk of death, bleeding, and vascular complications and is preferred over femoral artery access, leading to a class 1 indication by clinical practice guidelines. However, alternate upper extremity access such as distal radial and ulnar access are not mentioned in the guidelines despite randomized trials. We aimed to evaluate procedural outcomes with femoral, radial, distal radial, and ulnar access sites in patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared at least 2 of the 4 access sites in patients undergoing PCI or angiography. Primary outcomes were major bleeding and access site hematoma. Intention-to-treat mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: From 47 randomized clinical trials that randomized 38 924 patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI, when compared with femoral access, there was a lower risk of major bleeding with radial access (odds ratio [OR], 0.46 [95% CI, 0.35–0.59]) and lower risk of access site hematoma with radial (OR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.24–0.48]), distal radial (OR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.20–0.56]), and ulnar (OR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.31–0.83]) access. However, when compared with radial access, there was higher risk of hematoma with ulnar access (OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.03–2.14]). CONCLUSIONS: Data from randomized…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 38 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free