Radial versus femoral artery access for percutaneous coronary angiography and intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in Chinese population.

Abstract

To compare the feasibility, efficiency and safety of coronary angiography (CAG) and interventional procedures between the radial and femoral catheterization approaches in Chinese population using systematic review and meta-analysis, we conducted a search of the studies comparing radial and femoral catheterization approaches in patients underwent either CAG or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Chinese population. Fixed-effect relative risk (RR) for the primary end points and the second end points were compared between the two approaches. A total of 27 studies (n=8,749 patients) were finally included in the analysis. The success rate of radial approach was slightly lower than that of femoral approach in patients receiving CAG (P=0.004), but similar in patients receiving a further PCI treatment (P=0.11). The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) was similar between two approaches (P=0.27). Radial catheterization had a significantly lower rate of puncture site complications (P<0.00001), but a lower rate of puncture success rate (P=0.02). In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), there was no difference in neither the risk of MACEs nor PCI success rate between two approaches (P=0.23 and 0.45, respectively), but a board line decrease of puncture success rate was observed in radial catheterization group (P=0.04). There were no significant differences in the volumes of contrast media, X-ray exposure time and operation time between the two approaches (all P>0.05). Thus, we concluded that radial approach is a safe method for CAG or PCI compared to traditional femoral approach in Chinese population due to their similar success rate of the procedure and risk of MACEs, and a decreased risk of puncture site complications.