| Title |
Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Interventions Across the Entire Spectrum of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.04.014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giuseppe Ferrante, Sunil V. Rao, Peter Jüni, Bruno R. Da Costa, Bernhard Reimers, Gianluigi Condorelli, Angelo Anzuini, Sanjit S. Jolly, Olivier F. Bertrand, Mitchell W. Krucoff, Stephan Windecker, Marco Valgimigli |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative appraisal of the effects on clinical outcomes of radial access for coronary interventions in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Randomized trials investigating radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary interventions have provided conflicting evidence. No comprehensive quantitative appraisal of the risks and benefits of each approach is available across the whole spectrum of patients with stable or unstable CAD. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effects or a random-effects model, as appropriate. Pre-specified subgroup analyses according to clinical presentation, in terms of stable CAD, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were performed. Twenty-four studies enrolling 22,843 participants were included. Compared with femoral access, radial access was associated with a significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.87; p = 0.001, number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] = 160), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.94; p = 0.002; NNTB = 99), major bleeding (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.65; p < 0.001; NNTB = 103), and major vascular complications (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.35; p < 0.001; NNTB = 117). The rates of myocardial infarction or stroke were similar in the 2 groups. Effects of radial access were consistent across the whole spectrum of patients with CAD for all appraised endpoints. Compared with femoral access, radial access reduces mortality and MACE and improves safety, with reductions in major bleeding and vascular complications across the whole spectrum of patients with CAD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 18% |
| Spain | 3 | 18% |
| United States | 3 | 18% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | 6% |
| Argentina | 1 | 6% |
| Colombia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 65% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
| Scientists | 2 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 240 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 39 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 11% |
| Researcher | 25 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 42 | 17% |
| Unknown | 74 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 117 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 13 | 5% |
| Unknown | 91 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 112. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2019.
All research outputs
#379,455
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#44
of 4,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,528
of 373,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#2
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.