Distal Versus Proximal Radial Arterial Access for Percutaneous Coronary Angiography and Intervention: Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is a major impediment to reintervention in patients who underwent proximal transradial access (p-TRA) for coronary catheterization. Distal transradial access (d-TRA) at the level of snuffbox distal to the radial artery bifurcation is a novel alternative to p-TRA. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the incidence of RAO between p-TRA and d-TRA, along with access site-related complications. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for RCTs published since 2017 to October 2023 comparing d-TRA and p-TRA for coronary angiography and/or intervention. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model for procedural and clinical outcomes for the 2 approaches. A total of 18 RCTs with 8,205 patients (d-TRA n = 4,096, p-TRA n = 4,109) were included. The risk of RAO (RR 0.31, 0.21 to 0.46, p ≤0.001) and time to hemostasis (minutes) (MD -51.18, -70.62 to -31.73, p <0.001) was significantly lower in the d-TRA group. Crossover rates (RR 2.39, 1.71 to 3.32, p <0.001), access time (minutes) (MD 0.93, 0.50 to 1.37, p <0.001), procedural pain (MD 0.46, 0.13 to 0.79, p = 0.006), and multiple puncture attempts (RR 2.13, 1.10 to 4.11, p = 0.03) were significantly higher in the d-TRA group. The use of d-TRA for coronary angiography and/or intervention is associated with a lower risk of RAO at the forearm and may preserve p-TRA site for reintervention in selective patients by reducing the incidence of RAO.

An Endovascular- Versus a Surgery-First Revascularization Strategy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Timely revascularization is essential for limb salvage and to reduce mortality in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). In patients who are candidates for endovascular therapy and surgical bypass, the optimal revascularization strategy remains uncertain. Recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have presented conflicting results. We conducted a trial-level meta-analysis to compare the outcomes between endovascular-first and surgery-first strategies for revascularization. PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs comparing the outcomes of endovascular-first versus surgery-first strategies for revascularization in patients with CLTI. Data were pooled for major outcomes and their aggregate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. Kaplan-Meier curves for amputation-free survival and overall survival time were plotted using the pooled aggregated data from published curves, with their corresponding hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals reported for up to 5 years of follow-up. A total of 3 RCTs with 2,627 patients (1,312 endovascular-first and 1,315 surgery-first) were included in the meta-analysis. Of these, 1,864 patients (70.9%) were men and 347 (13.2%) were older than 80 years. Comparing the endovascular-first and surgery-first approaches, there was no significant difference in the overall (HR 0.92 [0.83 to 1.01], p = 0.09) or amputation-free survival (HR 0.98 [0.92 to 1.03], p = 0.42), reintervention (RR 1.24 [0.74 to 2.07], p = 0.41), major amputation, (RR 1.16 [0.87 to 1.54], p = 0.31), or therapeutic crossover (RR 0.92 [0.37 to 2.26], p = 0.85). In conclusion, data from available RCTs suggest that there is no difference in clinical outcomes between endovascular-first and surgery-first revascularization strategies for CLTI. A planned patient-level meta-analysis may provide further insight.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Manta device and Perclose device for closure of large bore arterial access.

Data comparing MANTA device with Perclose device for large bore arterial access closure is limited. We performed meta-analysis to compare safety and efficacy of the two devices in large (⩾14 Fr sheath) arteriotomy closure post-TAVR. Relevant studies were identified via PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases until June, 2022. Data was analyzed using random effect model to calculate relative odds of VARC-2 defined access-site complications and short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. A total of 12 studies (2 RCT and 10 observational studies) comprising 2339 patients were included. The odds of major vascular complications (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.92; p = 0.98); life threatening and major bleeding (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45-1.33; p = 0.35); minor vascular complications (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.63-2.99; p = 0.43); minor bleeding (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57-1.56; p = 0.82); device failure (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49-1.11; p = 0.14); hematoma formation (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33-1.75; p = 0.52); dissection, stenosis, occlusion, or pseudoaneurysm (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71-1.62; p = 0.73) and short-term mortality (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.55-1.84; p = 0.98) between both devices were similar. MANTA device has a similar efficacy and safety profile compared to Perclose device.