Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Radial or Femoral Access for Carotid Stenting.

Abstract

Purpose: There is a growing interest in performing coronary artery and neurovascular interventions via the radial artery; however, few studies have examined the outcomes of transradial carotid stenting. Therefore, our study aimed to compare cerebrovascular outcomes and crossover rates in carotid stenting between transradial and traditional transfemoral approaches.

Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching three electronic databases from inception to June 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. In addition, random effect meta-analysis was used to pool the odds ratios (ORs) for stroke, transient ischemic attack, major adverse cardiac events, death, major vascular access site complications, and procedure crossover rates between the transradial and transfemoral approaches.

Results: A total of 6 studies were included involving a total of n = 567 transradial and n = 6176 transfemoral procedures. The ORs for stroke, transient ischemic attack, and major adverse cardiac events were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, CI 0.72-2.86, I² = 0), 0.51 (95% CI 0.17-1.54, I² = 0), and 1.08 (95% CI 0.62-1.86, I² = 0), respectively. Neither the major vascular access site complication rate (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.32-3.87, I² = 0) nor crossover rate (OR 3.94, 95% CI 0.62-25.11, I² = 57%) showed statistically significant differences between the two approaches.

Conclusion: The modest quality of the data suggested comparable procedural outcomes between the transradial and transfemoral approaches when performing carotid stenting; however, high level evidence regarding postoperative brain images and risk of stroke in transradial carotid stenting are lacking. Therefore, it is reasonable for interventionists to weigh up the risks of neurological events and potential benefits, including fewer access site complications, before choosing the radial or femoral arteries as access sites. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials are imperative.