Procedural Feasibility and Peri-procedural Outcomes of Peripheral Endovascular Therapy via Transradial versus Transfemoral Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of transradial access for peripheral vascular interventions. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE and Embase. REVIEW METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to June 2023 to identify studies investigating the outcomes of lower extremity, carotid, and visceral artery vascular interventions via transradial vs. transfemoral access. The primary outcome was procedural failure rate. Secondary outcomes were total access site complications, minor and major bleeding, stroke, access vessel occlusion, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials and 29 observational studies yielded a total of 70 882 patients treated via transradial (n = 2 616) vs. transfemoral access (n = 68 338). The overall failure rate was 2.3 ± 0.7%, and the transradial approach was associated with a statistically significantly higher procedural failure rate than the transfemoral approach (3.9 ± 0.7% vs. 1.0 ± 0.3%; odds ratio [OR] 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.84 - 5.12; I2 = 32%; p < .001). Subgroup analysis showed the highest failure rate in lower extremity interventions with 12.4 ± 4.9% for transradial vs. 4.0 ± 1.2% for transfemoral access. Conversely, procedural complications were statistically significantly fewer with transradial access for total access site complications (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.91; I2 = 36%; p = .010). Minor bleeding was statistically significantly less with the transradial approach (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.86; I2 = 30%; p = .010), whereas major bleeding and stroke rates were similar. Transradial access had more access vessel occlusion than transfemoral access (1.9% ± 0.5% vs. < 0.1% ± 0.0%; p = .004), although most remained asymptomatic. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume were all comparable. GRADE certainty was low to moderate in most outcomes. CONCLUSION: The transradial approach was associated with a higher procedural failure rate. Total access site complications and minor bleeding were lower with the transradial approach, albeit with more frequent access vessel occlusion. Transradial access may be a feasible and safe approach; however, appropriate patient selection is imperative.