Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Mechanical Thrombectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

IF 2.1 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Mohamed Elfil, Hazem S. Ghaith, M. F. Doheim, P. Aboutaleb, Dominic J. Romeo, M. Salem, M. Aladawi, B. Jankowitz, J. Burkhardt, Thanh N. Nguyen, F. Al‐Mufti, R. Nogueira
{"title":"Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Mechanical Thrombectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis","authors":"Mohamed Elfil, Hazem S. Ghaith, M. F. Doheim, P. Aboutaleb, Dominic J. Romeo, M. Salem, M. Aladawi, B. Jankowitz, J. Burkhardt, Thanh N. Nguyen, F. Al‐Mufti, R. Nogueira","doi":"10.1161/svin.122.000758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n In patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, a few studies have compared transradial access (TRA) to transfemoral access (TFA) with inconsistent results. We conducted this systematic review and meta‐analysis to provide comprehensive evidence regarding the comparison of procedural and clinical outcomes of TRA versus TFA in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy.\n \n \n \n We performed a comprehensive literature search of 4 electronic databases from inception until May 1, 2022. After title and full text screening, relevant data were extracted and then analyzed. For outcomes that constituted continuous data, the mean difference between the 2 groups and its SD were pooled. For outcomes that constituted dichotomous data, the frequency of events and the total number of patients in each group were pooled as odds ratio (OR) between the 2 groups.\n \n \n \n \n Nine observational studies were included in this meta‐analysis. The population of the studies was homogenous comprising a total of 2161 patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy, including 446 patients via TRA and 1715 patients via TFA. There were no significant differences across the 2 groups in terms of successful recanalization (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.55–1.25];\n P\n =0.36), complete recanalization (OR 1.16 [95% CI, 0.50–2.68];\n P\n =0.73), favorable functional outcomes (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.53–1.41];\n P\n =0.56), first‐pass reperfusion (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64–1.19];\n P\n =0.41), number of passes (mean difference, 0.12 [95% CI, −0.18 to 0.42];\n P\n =0.43), access‐to‐reperfusion time (mean difference, −3.92 minutes [95% CI, −9.49 to 1.65];\n P\n =0.17), or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.47–1.57];\n P\n =0.62). However, access site complications were significantly less frequent in the TRA group as compared with the TFA group (OR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.06–0.51;\n P\n =0.001).\n \n \n \n \n In patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, the collective evidence suggests that TRA seems to result in lower rates of access site complications than TFA without significant compromise in other clinical or procedural metrics. Randomized or prospective studies are warranted to confirm these results.\n","PeriodicalId":74875,"journal":{"name":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.122.000758","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, a few studies have compared transradial access (TRA) to transfemoral access (TFA) with inconsistent results. We conducted this systematic review and meta‐analysis to provide comprehensive evidence regarding the comparison of procedural and clinical outcomes of TRA versus TFA in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy. We performed a comprehensive literature search of 4 electronic databases from inception until May 1, 2022. After title and full text screening, relevant data were extracted and then analyzed. For outcomes that constituted continuous data, the mean difference between the 2 groups and its SD were pooled. For outcomes that constituted dichotomous data, the frequency of events and the total number of patients in each group were pooled as odds ratio (OR) between the 2 groups. Nine observational studies were included in this meta‐analysis. The population of the studies was homogenous comprising a total of 2161 patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy, including 446 patients via TRA and 1715 patients via TFA. There were no significant differences across the 2 groups in terms of successful recanalization (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.55–1.25]; P =0.36), complete recanalization (OR 1.16 [95% CI, 0.50–2.68]; P =0.73), favorable functional outcomes (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.53–1.41]; P =0.56), first‐pass reperfusion (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64–1.19]; P =0.41), number of passes (mean difference, 0.12 [95% CI, −0.18 to 0.42]; P =0.43), access‐to‐reperfusion time (mean difference, −3.92 minutes [95% CI, −9.49 to 1.65]; P =0.17), or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.47–1.57]; P =0.62). However, access site complications were significantly less frequent in the TRA group as compared with the TFA group (OR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.06–0.51; P =0.001). In patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, the collective evidence suggests that TRA seems to result in lower rates of access site complications than TFA without significant compromise in other clinical or procedural metrics. Randomized or prospective studies are warranted to confirm these results.
经桡动脉与经股动脉机械取栓:系统回顾和荟萃分析
在接受急性缺血性卒中机械血栓切除术的患者中,一些研究将经桡动脉通路(TRA)与经股动脉通路(TFA)进行了比较,但结果不一致。我们进行了这项系统综述和荟萃分析,以提供全面的证据,比较接受机械血栓切除术的急性缺血性卒中患者TRA与TFA的程序和临床结果。从成立到2022年5月1日,我们对4个电子数据库进行了全面的文献检索。经过标题和全文筛选,提取相关数据并进行分析。对于构成连续数据的结果,将两组之间的平均差异及其SD合并。对于构成二分数据的结果,将每组中的事件频率和患者总数合并为两组之间的比值比(OR)。本荟萃分析包括9项观察性研究。研究人群是同质的,共有2161名患者接受机械血栓切除术,其中446名患者通过TRA,1715名患者通过TFA。两组在再通成功率(OR,0.83[95%CI,0.55-1.25];P=0.36)、完全再通率(OR 1.16[95%CI,0.50-2.68];P=0.73)、良好的功能结果(OR,0.96[95%CI;0.53-1.41];P=0.56)、首次再通率,通过次数(平均差异0.12[95%CI,−0.18至0.42];P=0.43)、进入再灌注时间(平均差异−3.92分钟[9%CI,−9.49至1.65];P=0.17)或症状性颅内出血(or,0.86[95%CI;0.47至1.57];P=0.62)。然而,与TFA组相比,TRA组的入路部位并发症发生率显著降低(OR,0.18[95%CI,0.06-0.51;P=0.001)在接受急性缺血性卒中机械血栓切除术的患者中,集体证据表明,TRA似乎比TFA导致进入部位并发症的发生率更低,而在其他临床或程序指标上没有显著的折衷。有必要进行随机或前瞻性研究来证实这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信