{"title":"颈动脉支架植入术的桡骨或股骨入路系统性回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Pang-Shuo Perng, Yu Chang, Hao-Kuang Wang, Yen-Ta Huang, Chia-En Wong, Kuan-Yu Chi, Jung-Shun Lee, Liang-Chao Wang, Chih-Yuan Huang","doi":"10.1007/s00062-023-01315-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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, I<sup>2</sup> = 0), 0.51 (95% CI 0.17-1.54, I<sup>2</sup> = 0), and 1.08 (95% CI 0.62-1.86, I<sup>2</sup> = 0), respectively. Neither the major vascular access site complication rate (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.32-3.87, I<sup>2</sup> = 0) nor crossover rate (OR 3.94, 95% CI 0.62-25.11, I<sup>2</sup> = 57%) showed statistically significant differences between the two approaches.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":10391,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":"3-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Radial or Femoral Access for Carotid Stenting.\",\"authors\":\"Pang-Shuo Perng, Yu Chang, Hao-Kuang Wang, Yen-Ta Huang, Chia-En Wong, Kuan-Yu Chi, Jung-Shun Lee, Liang-Chao Wang, Chih-Yuan Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00062-023-01315-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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, I<sup>2</sup> = 0), 0.51 (95% CI 0.17-1.54, I<sup>2</sup> = 0), and 1.08 (95% CI 0.62-1.86, I<sup>2</sup> = 0), respectively. Neither the major vascular access site complication rate (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.32-3.87, I<sup>2</sup> = 0) nor crossover rate (OR 3.94, 95% CI 0.62-25.11, I<sup>2</sup> = 57%) showed statistically significant differences between the two approaches.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Neuroradiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-023-01315-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-023-01315-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:经桡动脉进行冠状动脉和神经血管介入治疗的兴趣日益浓厚,但很少有研究对经桡动脉颈动脉支架置入术的效果进行研究。因此,我们的研究旨在比较经桡动脉和传统经股动脉支架置入术的脑血管疗效和交叉率:方法:根据《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》指南,通过检索三个电子数据库,对从开始到2022年6月的研究进行了系统综述。此外,还采用随机效应荟萃分析法汇集了经桡动脉和经股动脉两种方法在中风、短暂性脑缺血发作、主要心脏不良事件、死亡、主要血管通路部位并发症和手术交叉率方面的几率比(ORs):结果:共纳入了 6 项研究,涉及经桡动脉手术 567 例,经股动脉手术 6176 例。中风、短暂性脑缺血发作和主要不良心脏事件的OR值分别为1.43(95% 置信区间,CI 0.72-2.86,I2 = 0)、0.51(95% CI 0.17-1.54,I2 = 0)和1.08(95% CI 0.62-1.86,I2 = 0)。两种方法的主要血管通路部位并发症发生率(OR 1.11,95% CI 0.32-3.87,I2 = 0)和交叉率(OR 3.94,95% CI 0.62-25.11,I2 = 57%)在统计学上均无显着差异:数据质量一般,表明经桡动脉和经股动脉两种方法进行颈动脉支架置入术的疗效相当;但是,经桡动脉颈动脉支架置入术的术后脑图像和中风风险方面缺乏高水平的证据。因此,介入医师在选择桡动脉或股动脉作为入路部位之前,有理由权衡神经事件的风险和潜在的益处,包括较少的入路部位并发症。未来的大规模随机对照试验势在必行。
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Radial or Femoral Access for Carotid Stenting.
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.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Neuroradiology provides current information, original contributions, and reviews in the field of neuroradiology. An interdisciplinary approach is accomplished by diagnostic and therapeutic contributions related to associated subjects.
The international coverage and relevance of the journal is underlined by its being the official journal of the German, Swiss, and Austrian Societies of Neuroradiology.