» Articles » PMID: 26108097

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of the Left Versus Right Radial Approach for Percutaneous Coronary Procedures: a Meta-analysis Including 6870 Patients

Overview
Date 2015 Jun 25
PMID 26108097
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The radial approach is widely used in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. We conducted a meta-analysis of published results on the efficacy and safety of the left and right radial approaches in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures. A systematic search of reference databases was conducted, and data from 14 randomized controlled trials involving 6870 participants were analyzed. The left radial approach was associated with significant reductions in fluoroscopy time [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-0.19 to -0.09; P<0.00001] and contrast volume (SMD=-0.07, 95%CI=-0.12 to -0.02; P=0.009). There were no significant differences in rate of procedural failure of the left and the right radial approaches [risk ratios (RR)=0.98; 95%CI=0.77-1.25; P=0.88] or procedural time (SMD=-0.05, 95%CI=0.17-0.06; P=0.38). Tortuosity of the subclavian artery (RR=0.27, 95%CI=0.14-0.50; P<0.0001) was reported more frequently with the right radial approach. A greater number of catheters were used with the left than with the right radial approach (SMD=0.25, 95%CI=0.04-0.46; P=0.02). We conclude that the left radial approach is as safe as the right radial approach, and that the left radial approach should be recommended for use in percutaneous coronary procedures, especially in percutaneous coronary angiograms.

Citing Articles

Left vs. right radial approach for coronary catheterization: Relation to age and severe aortic stenosis.

Will M, Weiss T, Weber M, Kwok C, Borovac J, Lamm G Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 9:1022415.

PMID: 36386308 PMC: 9662167. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1022415.


Efficacy and Safety of "Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Angiography" with Right Transradial Access versus Left Transradial Access and Femoral Access: a Retrospective Comparative Study.

Balaban Y, Akbas M, Akbas M, Ozerdem A Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2019; 34(1):48-56.

PMID: 30810674 PMC: 6385842. DOI: 10.21470/1678-9741-2018-0270.


Transradial access for coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures: Consensus statement and recommendations for India: Advancing Complex CoronariES Sciences through TransRADIAL intervention in India - ACCESS RADIAL™: Clinical consensus....

Goel P, Menon A, Mullasari A, Valaparambil A, Pinto B, Pahlajani D Indian Heart J. 2018; 70(6):922-933.

PMID: 30580867 PMC: 6306363. DOI: 10.1016/j.ihj.2018.03.004.


Radiation Exposures Associated With Radial and Femoral Coronary Interventions.

Voudris K, Habibi M, Karyofillis P, Vidovich M Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2016; 18(12):73.

PMID: 27778258 DOI: 10.1007/s11936-016-0499-x.

References
1.
Santas E, Bodi V, Sanchis J, Nunez J, Mainar L, Minana G . The left radial approach in daily practice. A randomized study comparing femoral and right and left radial approaches. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009; 62(5):482-90. DOI: 10.1016/s1885-5857(09)71830-4. View

2.
Norgaz T, Gorgulu S, Dagdelen S . A randomized study comparing the effectiveness of right and left radial approach for coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 80(2):260-4. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.23463. View

3.
Freixa X, Trilla M, Feldman M, Jimenez M, Betriu A, Masotti M . Right versus left transradial approach for coronary catheterization in octogenarian patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 80(2):267-72. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.23474. View

4.
Dominici M, Diletti R, Milici C, Bock C, Placanica A, DAlessandro G . Operator exposure to x-ray in left and right radial access during percutaneous coronary procedures: OPERA randomised study. Heart. 2013; 99(7):480-4. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302895. View

5.
Biondi-Zoccai G, Sciahbasi A, Bodi V, Fernandez-Portales J, Kanei Y, Romagnoli E . Right versus left radial artery access for coronary procedures: an international collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis including 5 randomized trials and 3210 patients. Int J Cardiol. 2011; 166(3):621-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.11.100. View