Radial access in patients with acute coronary syndrome without persistent ST-segment elevation: Systematic review, collaborative meta-analysis, and meta-regression INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY Ando, G., Porto, I., Montalescot, G., Bolognese, L., Trani, C., Oreto, G., Harrington, R. A., Bhatt, D. L. 2016; 222: 1031-1039

Abstract

Consistent evidence of benefit exists for radial access (RA) in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients with non ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) have a more varied ischemic and bleeding profile. No randomized trial of vascular access ever focused on NSTE-ACS and landmark studies did not provide conclusive results in this heterogeneous subset of patients.We assessed in a meta-analysis whether RA is associated with improved outcomes in NSTE-ACS patients. Included studies had to meet the following criteria: 1) enrolling patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing invasive management; 2) reporting outcomes with respect to RA as compared with femoral access (FA); 3) reporting short-term (procedural, in-hospital and up to 30-day) or long-term clinical outcomes. Studies were pooled with fixed and random effects models and heterogeneity was investigated by weighted meta-regression.Eleven studies were included encompassing 131.339 patients, 46.451 receiving RA and 84.888 receiving FA. Thirty-day mortality and MACE were lower with RA (p<0.001 with fixed effects, p=NS with random effects model), but these results depended on one large observational database. Major bleeding was consistently reduced by RA (p<0.001), albeit an inverse relationship with the proportion of patients in each study receiving FA and experiencing major bleeding was evident. The association of RA with reduced long-term mortality was of borderline significance (p=0.054 with random-effects, p=0.001 with fixed-effect model) and also depended on major bleeding in FA patients.RA is associated with better outcomes as compared with FA in NSTE-ACS, although this observation is influenced by nonrandomized comparisons. Large heterogeneity exists among studies.This study is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42015029459).

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.07.228

View details for PubMedID 27537543