Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transradial Access for Carotid Artery Stenting
There is an increasing number of studies on the transradial approach (TRA) for carotid artery stenting. We aimed to summarize the published data on TRA vs the transfemoral approach (TFA). We searched Science Direct, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for the relevant literature. Primary ou...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Angiology 2024-07, Vol.75 (6), p.517-526 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 526 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 517 |
| container_title | Angiology |
| container_volume | 75 |
| creator | Du, Meng Hu, Yueyu Zhu, Deyuan Cao, Wei Li, Peng Qi, Dayong Wu, Chao He, Juanling Ye, Shifei Li, Suya Fang, Yibin |
| description | There is an increasing number of studies on the transradial approach (TRA) for carotid artery stenting. We aimed to summarize the published data on TRA vs the transfemoral approach (TFA). We searched Science Direct, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for the relevant literature. Primary outcomes included surgical success and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complication rates; secondary outcomes included the rates of vascular access-related and other complications. We also compared the crossover rate, success rate, and complications between TRA and TFA carotid stenting. This is the first such meta-analysis regarding TRA and TFA. Twenty studies on TRA carotid stenting were included (n = 1300). Among 19 studies, the success rate of TRA carotid stenting was .951 (95% confidence interval [CI]: .926–.975); death rate was .022 (.011–.032); stroke rate was .005 (.001–.008); radial artery occlusion rate was .008 (.003–.013); and forearm hematoma rate was .003 (−.000 to .006). Among 4 studies comparing TRA and TFA, the success rate was lower (odds ratio: .02; 95% CI: .00–.23) and crossover rate was higher (odds ratio: 40.16; 95% CI: 4.41–365.73) with TRA. Thus, transradial neuro-interventional surgery has a lower success rate than TFA. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/00033197231183231 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2825158061</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_00033197231183231</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2825158061</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-567391ef6d796591148305b66cc7a4608d8bf5936ab2509f356a787b87e9d9543</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMotlZ_gBfJ0cvWzGaTbI5L8QsUwbbnJZvNlpT9qElW2X_vllYvggzMMMwz7-FB6BrIHECIO0IIpSBFTAFSOvYTNAWZkAiYSE7RdH-P9sAEXXi_HVcGhJ-jCRWUjAVTtF4OPphGBavxu_m05gurtsSvJqgoa1U9eOtxV-GVU613qrSqxpnWxntcdQ4vlOuCLXHmgnEDXgbTBttuLtFZpWpvro5zhtYP96vFU_Ty9vi8yF4iTRMSIsYFlWAqXgrJmQRIUkpYwbnWQiWcpGVaVExSroqYEVlRxpVIRZEKI0vJEjpDt4fcnes-euND3livTV2r1nS9z-M0ZsBSwmFE4YBq13nvTJXvnG2UG3Ig-d5m_sfm-HNzjO-LxpS_Hz_6RmB-ALzamHzb9W5U5v9J_AZYTXqF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2825158061</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transradial Access for Carotid Artery Stenting</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Du, Meng ; Hu, Yueyu ; Zhu, Deyuan ; Cao, Wei ; Li, Peng ; Qi, Dayong ; Wu, Chao ; He, Juanling ; Ye, Shifei ; Li, Suya ; Fang, Yibin</creator><creatorcontrib>Du, Meng ; Hu, Yueyu ; Zhu, Deyuan ; Cao, Wei ; Li, Peng ; Qi, Dayong ; Wu, Chao ; He, Juanling ; Ye, Shifei ; Li, Suya ; Fang, Yibin</creatorcontrib><description>There is an increasing number of studies on the transradial approach (TRA) for carotid artery stenting. We aimed to summarize the published data on TRA vs the transfemoral approach (TFA). We searched Science Direct, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for the relevant literature. Primary outcomes included surgical success and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complication rates; secondary outcomes included the rates of vascular access-related and other complications. We also compared the crossover rate, success rate, and complications between TRA and TFA carotid stenting. This is the first such meta-analysis regarding TRA and TFA. Twenty studies on TRA carotid stenting were included (n = 1300). Among 19 studies, the success rate of TRA carotid stenting was .951 (95% confidence interval [CI]: .926–.975); death rate was .022 (.011–.032); stroke rate was .005 (.001–.008); radial artery occlusion rate was .008 (.003–.013); and forearm hematoma rate was .003 (−.000 to .006). Among 4 studies comparing TRA and TFA, the success rate was lower (odds ratio: .02; 95% CI: .00–.23) and crossover rate was higher (odds ratio: 40.16; 95% CI: 4.41–365.73) with TRA. Thus, transradial neuro-interventional surgery has a lower success rate than TFA.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-3197</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1940-1574</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/00033197231183231</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37303031</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Carotid Stenosis - surgery ; Carotid Stenosis - therapy ; Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects ; Catheterization, Peripheral - methods ; Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects ; Endovascular Procedures - methods ; Femoral Artery ; Humans ; Punctures ; Radial Artery ; Risk Factors ; Stents ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Angiology, 2024-07, Vol.75 (6), p.517-526</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-567391ef6d796591148305b66cc7a4608d8bf5936ab2509f356a787b87e9d9543</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-567391ef6d796591148305b66cc7a4608d8bf5936ab2509f356a787b87e9d9543</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1954-3959</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00033197231183231$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00033197231183231$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>313,314,776,780,788,21798,27899,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37303031$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Du, Meng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Yueyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Deyuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cao, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Peng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qi, Dayong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Chao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Juanling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ye, Shifei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Suya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fang, Yibin</creatorcontrib><title>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transradial Access for Carotid Artery Stenting</title><title>Angiology</title><addtitle>Angiology</addtitle><description>There is an increasing number of studies on the transradial approach (TRA) for carotid artery stenting. We aimed to summarize the published data on TRA vs the transfemoral approach (TFA). We searched Science Direct, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for the relevant literature. Primary outcomes included surgical success and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complication rates; secondary outcomes included the rates of vascular access-related and other complications. We also compared the crossover rate, success rate, and complications between TRA and TFA carotid stenting. This is the first such meta-analysis regarding TRA and TFA. Twenty studies on TRA carotid stenting were included (n = 1300). Among 19 studies, the success rate of TRA carotid stenting was .951 (95% confidence interval [CI]: .926–.975); death rate was .022 (.011–.032); stroke rate was .005 (.001–.008); radial artery occlusion rate was .008 (.003–.013); and forearm hematoma rate was .003 (−.000 to .006). Among 4 studies comparing TRA and TFA, the success rate was lower (odds ratio: .02; 95% CI: .00–.23) and crossover rate was higher (odds ratio: 40.16; 95% CI: 4.41–365.73) with TRA. Thus, transradial neuro-interventional surgery has a lower success rate than TFA.</description><subject>Carotid Stenosis - surgery</subject><subject>Carotid Stenosis - therapy</subject><subject>Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects</subject><subject>Catheterization, Peripheral - methods</subject><subject>Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>Endovascular Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Femoral Artery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Punctures</subject><subject>Radial Artery</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Stents</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0003-3197</issn><issn>1940-1574</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMotlZ_gBfJ0cvWzGaTbI5L8QsUwbbnJZvNlpT9qElW2X_vllYvggzMMMwz7-FB6BrIHECIO0IIpSBFTAFSOvYTNAWZkAiYSE7RdH-P9sAEXXi_HVcGhJ-jCRWUjAVTtF4OPphGBavxu_m05gurtsSvJqgoa1U9eOtxV-GVU613qrSqxpnWxntcdQ4vlOuCLXHmgnEDXgbTBttuLtFZpWpvro5zhtYP96vFU_Ty9vi8yF4iTRMSIsYFlWAqXgrJmQRIUkpYwbnWQiWcpGVaVExSroqYEVlRxpVIRZEKI0vJEjpDt4fcnes-euND3livTV2r1nS9z-M0ZsBSwmFE4YBq13nvTJXvnG2UG3Ig-d5m_sfm-HNzjO-LxpS_Hz_6RmB-ALzamHzb9W5U5v9J_AZYTXqF</recordid><startdate>202407</startdate><enddate>202407</enddate><creator>Du, Meng</creator><creator>Hu, Yueyu</creator><creator>Zhu, Deyuan</creator><creator>Cao, Wei</creator><creator>Li, Peng</creator><creator>Qi, Dayong</creator><creator>Wu, Chao</creator><creator>He, Juanling</creator><creator>Ye, Shifei</creator><creator>Li, Suya</creator><creator>Fang, Yibin</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1954-3959</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202407</creationdate><title>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transradial Access for Carotid Artery Stenting</title><author>Du, Meng ; Hu, Yueyu ; Zhu, Deyuan ; Cao, Wei ; Li, Peng ; Qi, Dayong ; Wu, Chao ; He, Juanling ; Ye, Shifei ; Li, Suya ; Fang, Yibin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-567391ef6d796591148305b66cc7a4608d8bf5936ab2509f356a787b87e9d9543</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Carotid Stenosis - surgery</topic><topic>Carotid Stenosis - therapy</topic><topic>Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects</topic><topic>Catheterization, Peripheral - methods</topic><topic>Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>Endovascular Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Femoral Artery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Punctures</topic><topic>Radial Artery</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Stents</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Du, Meng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Yueyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Deyuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cao, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Peng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qi, Dayong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Chao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Juanling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ye, Shifei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Suya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fang, Yibin</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Angiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Du, Meng</au><au>Hu, Yueyu</au><au>Zhu, Deyuan</au><au>Cao, Wei</au><au>Li, Peng</au><au>Qi, Dayong</au><au>Wu, Chao</au><au>He, Juanling</au><au>Ye, Shifei</au><au>Li, Suya</au><au>Fang, Yibin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transradial Access for Carotid Artery Stenting</atitle><jtitle>Angiology</jtitle><addtitle>Angiology</addtitle><date>2024-07</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>517</spage><epage>526</epage><pages>517-526</pages><issn>0003-3197</issn><eissn>1940-1574</eissn><abstract>There is an increasing number of studies on the transradial approach (TRA) for carotid artery stenting. We aimed to summarize the published data on TRA vs the transfemoral approach (TFA). We searched Science Direct, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for the relevant literature. Primary outcomes included surgical success and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complication rates; secondary outcomes included the rates of vascular access-related and other complications. We also compared the crossover rate, success rate, and complications between TRA and TFA carotid stenting. This is the first such meta-analysis regarding TRA and TFA. Twenty studies on TRA carotid stenting were included (n = 1300). Among 19 studies, the success rate of TRA carotid stenting was .951 (95% confidence interval [CI]: .926–.975); death rate was .022 (.011–.032); stroke rate was .005 (.001–.008); radial artery occlusion rate was .008 (.003–.013); and forearm hematoma rate was .003 (−.000 to .006). Among 4 studies comparing TRA and TFA, the success rate was lower (odds ratio: .02; 95% CI: .00–.23) and crossover rate was higher (odds ratio: 40.16; 95% CI: 4.41–365.73) with TRA. Thus, transradial neuro-interventional surgery has a lower success rate than TFA.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>37303031</pmid><doi>10.1177/00033197231183231</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1954-3959</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0003-3197 |
| ispartof | Angiology, 2024-07, Vol.75 (6), p.517-526 |
| issn | 0003-3197 1940-1574 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2825158061 |
| source | MEDLINE; SAGE Complete |
| subjects | Carotid Stenosis - surgery Carotid Stenosis - therapy Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects Catheterization, Peripheral - methods Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects Endovascular Procedures - methods Femoral Artery Humans Punctures Radial Artery Risk Factors Stents Treatment Outcome |
| title | Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transradial Access for Carotid Artery Stenting |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T10%3A51%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-Analysis%20of%20Transradial%20Access%20for%20Carotid%20Artery%20Stenting&rft.jtitle=Angiology&rft.au=Du,%20Meng&rft.date=2024-07&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=517&rft.epage=526&rft.pages=517-526&rft.issn=0003-3197&rft.eissn=1940-1574&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/00033197231183231&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2825158061%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2825158061&rft_id=info:pmid/37303031&rft_sage_id=10.1177_00033197231183231&rfr_iscdi=true |