Right versus left radial artery access for coronary procedures: an international collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis including 5 randomized trials and 3210 patients

BACKGROUND: Radial artery access is a mainstay in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease. However, there is uncertainty on the comparison of right versus left radial access for coronary procedures. We thus undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing right versus left radial access for coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures. METHODS: Pertinent studies were searched in CENTRAL, Google Scholar, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Scopus, together with international conference proceedings. Randomized trials comparing right versus left radial (or ulnar) access for coronary diagnostic or interventional procedures were included. Risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were computed to generate point estimates (95% confidence intervals). RESULTS: A total of 5 trials (3210 patients) were included. No overall significant differences were found comparing right versus left radial access in terms of procedural time (WMD=0.99 [-0.53; 2.51]min, p=0.20), contrast use (WMD=1.71 [-1.32; 4.74]mL, p=0.27), fluoroscopy time (WMD=-35.79 [-3.54; 75.12]s, p=0.07) or any major complication (RR=2.00 [0.75; 5.31], p=0.49). However, right radial access was fraught with a significantly higher risk of failure leading to cross-over to femoral access (RR=1.65 [1.18; 2.30], p=0.003) in comparison to left radial access. CONCLUSIONS: Right and left radial accesses appear largely similar in their overall procedural and clinical performance during transradial diagnostic or interventional procedures. Nonetheless, left radial access can be recommended especially during the learning curve phase to reduce femoral cross-overs

GPIIb/IIIa Receptor Antagonism Using Small Molecules Provides no Additive Long-Term Protection after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention as Compared to Clopidogrel Plus Aspirin

Background: There is some controversy as to whether tirofiban or eptifibatide, two small anti-aggregating drugs (AAD), may reduce the incidence of composite ischemic events within one year in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the real clinical world. Methods: We compared consecutive patients on oral double AAD (with clopidogrel and aspirin) who underwent PCI (n=207) and patients who were on single AAD and received a second AAD, just prior to PCI, and either high-dose tirofiban or double-bolus eptifibatide (double AAD plus small molecules group, n=666). The primary end point (incidence of composite ischemic events within one year) included death, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stent thrombosis or repeat PCI or coronary bypass surgery (related to the target vessel PCI failure) and was modelled by Cox's regression. Results: There were 89 composite ischemic events: 24 (11.6%) in double AAD alone and 65 (9.8%) in double AAD plus small molecules groups (log-rank test: p=0.36). Incidences by type of ischemic events were similar between the 2 groups. Based on 21 potential covariates fitted simultaneously, adjusted hazard ratios (HR and 95% confidence intervals) showed that age (HR 1.03, 1.01-1.06, p=0.01), diabetes (HR 1.68, 1.01-2.79, p=0.05) and intra aortic balloon pump (HR 5.12, 2.36-11.10, p=0.0001) were significant risk factors whereas thrombolysis by tenecteplase (HR 0.35, 0.13-0.98, p=0.05) and having had hypertension or anti-hypertensive treatment (HR 0.58, 0.36-0.93, p=0.03) were significant protectors for events. Whether small molecules were present provided a non significant additional benefit as compared to double AAD alone (HR 0.83, 0.51-1.36, p=0.46). Pre-PCI CK-MB were not useful to predict events (HR 1.01, 0.99-1.01, p=0.17). Conclusions: In clinical world patients undergoing PCI (rescue plus primary <13%) while on double AAD, based on clopidogrel plus aspirin, small molecules (tirofiban or eptifibatide) provided no additive long-term protection against the occurrence of composite ischemic events whereas thrombolysis by tenecteplase did. © Schiariti et al

The rough guide to systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The hierarchy of evidence based medicine postulates that systematic reviews of homogenous randomized trials represent one of the uppermost levels of clinical evidence. Indeed, the current overwhelming role of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses in evidence based heath care calls for a thorough knowledge of the pros and cons of these study designs, even for the busy clinician. Despite this sore need, few succinct but thorough resources are available to guide users or would-be authors of systematic reviews. This article provides a rough guide to reading and, summarily, designing and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses