冠状动脉介入治疗中远端桡动脉通路与传统桡动脉通路的比较:一项荟萃分析。

Khawaja M Talha, Eisha Waqar, Kellan E Ashley, Mauricio G Cohen, Alejandro Lemor, Michael R McMullan, John G Winscott, Gabriel A Hernandez
{"title":"冠状动脉介入治疗中远端桡动脉通路与传统桡动脉通路的比较:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Khawaja M Talha,&nbsp;Eisha Waqar,&nbsp;Kellan E Ashley,&nbsp;Mauricio G Cohen,&nbsp;Alejandro Lemor,&nbsp;Michael R McMullan,&nbsp;John G Winscott,&nbsp;Gabriel A Hernandez","doi":"10.1097/HPC.0000000000000304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Distal trans-radial access (dTRA) is a novel technique of arterial cannulation in coronary interventions. The comparative efficacy of dTRA and conventional trans-radial access (TRA) in attenuating peri-procedural complications is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Embase and PubMed/MEDLINE were searched from their inception until June 25, 2022, for randomized clinical trials. Outcomes included were radial artery occlusion (RAO), radial artery spasm, hemostasis time, access time, unsuccessful cannulation, crossover rate, and early discharge after trans-radial stenting of coronary arteries (EASY) type I-III hematomas. Statistical analysis was conducted using the random effects model to derive risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6 randomized clinical trials comprising 3240 patients were included. Subjects were predominantly male (73%) and had a mean age of 66 years. The dTRA group had a lower risk of RAO [RR 0.43 (95% CI, 0.26-0.69); P = 0.0005; I 2 = 0%] and had a shorter hemostasis time [MD -22.85 min (95% CI, -39.06 to -6.65); P = 0.006; I 2 = 99%]. The dTRA group had a higher crossover rate [RR 3.04 (95% CI, 1.88-4.91); P = 0.00001; I 2 = 56%] and a longer access time [MD 0.68 min (95% CI, 0.17-1.18); P = 0.009; I 2 = 99%]. The TRA group had a lower rate of unsuccessful cannulation [RR 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.95); P = 0.01; I 2 = 92%]. There was no significant difference between the groups for radial artery spasm and EASY type I-III hematomas.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>dTRA is a safe alternative to conventional TRA for coronary interventions with a lower risk of RAO. Future trials are required to further compare both approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":35914,"journal":{"name":"Critical Pathways in Cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distal Trans-radial Access Compared to Conventional Trans-radial Access in Coronary Interventions: A Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Khawaja M Talha,&nbsp;Eisha Waqar,&nbsp;Kellan E Ashley,&nbsp;Mauricio G Cohen,&nbsp;Alejandro Lemor,&nbsp;Michael R McMullan,&nbsp;John G Winscott,&nbsp;Gabriel A Hernandez\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HPC.0000000000000304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Distal trans-radial access (dTRA) is a novel technique of arterial cannulation in coronary interventions. The comparative efficacy of dTRA and conventional trans-radial access (TRA) in attenuating peri-procedural complications is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Embase and PubMed/MEDLINE were searched from their inception until June 25, 2022, for randomized clinical trials. Outcomes included were radial artery occlusion (RAO), radial artery spasm, hemostasis time, access time, unsuccessful cannulation, crossover rate, and early discharge after trans-radial stenting of coronary arteries (EASY) type I-III hematomas. Statistical analysis was conducted using the random effects model to derive risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6 randomized clinical trials comprising 3240 patients were included. Subjects were predominantly male (73%) and had a mean age of 66 years. The dTRA group had a lower risk of RAO [RR 0.43 (95% CI, 0.26-0.69); P = 0.0005; I 2 = 0%] and had a shorter hemostasis time [MD -22.85 min (95% CI, -39.06 to -6.65); P = 0.006; I 2 = 99%]. The dTRA group had a higher crossover rate [RR 3.04 (95% CI, 1.88-4.91); P = 0.00001; I 2 = 56%] and a longer access time [MD 0.68 min (95% CI, 0.17-1.18); P = 0.009; I 2 = 99%]. The TRA group had a lower rate of unsuccessful cannulation [RR 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.95); P = 0.01; I 2 = 92%]. There was no significant difference between the groups for radial artery spasm and EASY type I-III hematomas.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>dTRA is a safe alternative to conventional TRA for coronary interventions with a lower risk of RAO. Future trials are required to further compare both approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Pathways in Cardiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Pathways in Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HPC.0000000000000304\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Pathways in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HPC.0000000000000304","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:远端经桡动脉通路(dTRA)是冠状动脉介入治疗中的一项新技术。dTRA和传统的经桡骨通路(TRA)在减少术中并发症方面的比较效果尚不清楚。方法:检索Embase和PubMed/MEDLINE从建立到2022年6月25日的随机临床试验。结果包括桡动脉闭塞(RAO)、桡动脉痉挛、止血时间、通路时间、插管不成功、交叉率和经桡动脉支架置入(EASY)后I-III型血肿的早期出院。采用随机效应模型进行统计分析,得出风险比(rr)和平均差异(md)及其对应的95%置信区间(ci)。结果:共纳入6项随机临床试验,共纳入3240例患者。受试者主要为男性(73%),平均年龄为66岁。dTRA组发生RAO的风险较低[RR 0.43 (95% CI, 0.26-0.69);P = 0.0005;[2 = 0%]且止血时间较短[MD -22.85 min (95% CI, -39.06 ~ -6.65);P = 0.006;i2 = 99%]。dTRA组有较高的交叉率[RR 3.04 (95% CI, 1.88-4.91);P = 0.00001;I 2 = 56%]和更长的访问时间[MD 0.68 min (95% CI, 0.17-1.18);P = 0.009;i2 = 99%]。TRA组插管不成功率较低[RR 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.95);P = 0.01;i2 = 92%]。桡动脉痉挛和EASY I-III型血肿两组间差异无统计学意义。结论:dTRA是一种安全的替代传统TRA的冠状动脉介入治疗方法,具有较低的RAO风险。未来的试验需要进一步比较这两种方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Distal Trans-radial Access Compared to Conventional Trans-radial Access in Coronary Interventions: A Meta-analysis.

Background: Distal trans-radial access (dTRA) is a novel technique of arterial cannulation in coronary interventions. The comparative efficacy of dTRA and conventional trans-radial access (TRA) in attenuating peri-procedural complications is unknown.

Methods: Embase and PubMed/MEDLINE were searched from their inception until June 25, 2022, for randomized clinical trials. Outcomes included were radial artery occlusion (RAO), radial artery spasm, hemostasis time, access time, unsuccessful cannulation, crossover rate, and early discharge after trans-radial stenting of coronary arteries (EASY) type I-III hematomas. Statistical analysis was conducted using the random effects model to derive risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: A total of 6 randomized clinical trials comprising 3240 patients were included. Subjects were predominantly male (73%) and had a mean age of 66 years. The dTRA group had a lower risk of RAO [RR 0.43 (95% CI, 0.26-0.69); P = 0.0005; I 2 = 0%] and had a shorter hemostasis time [MD -22.85 min (95% CI, -39.06 to -6.65); P = 0.006; I 2 = 99%]. The dTRA group had a higher crossover rate [RR 3.04 (95% CI, 1.88-4.91); P = 0.00001; I 2 = 56%] and a longer access time [MD 0.68 min (95% CI, 0.17-1.18); P = 0.009; I 2 = 99%]. The TRA group had a lower rate of unsuccessful cannulation [RR 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.95); P = 0.01; I 2 = 92%]. There was no significant difference between the groups for radial artery spasm and EASY type I-III hematomas.

Conclusion: dTRA is a safe alternative to conventional TRA for coronary interventions with a lower risk of RAO. Future trials are required to further compare both approaches.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Pathways in Cardiology
Critical Pathways in Cardiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Critical Pathways in Cardiology provides a single source for the diagnostic and therapeutic protocols in use at hospitals worldwide for patients with cardiac disorders. The Journal presents critical pathways for specific diagnoses—complete with evidence-based rationales—and also publishes studies of these protocols" effectiveness.
期刊最新文献
Altered anthropometrics and HA1c levels, but not dyslipidemia, are associated with elevated hs-CRP levels in middle-aged adults: A population-based analysis. Role of Embolic Protection in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention without Saphenous Venous graft lesions in ST-elevation myocardial infarction - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Peripheral Artery Disease and Critical Limb Ischemia in the United States. Emergency Department and Critical Care Use of Clevidipine for Treatment of Hypertension in Patients with Acute Stroke. Impact of as Needed Heparin Boluses on Supratherapeutic Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time in Patients Managed With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1