Published online Apr 26, 2017. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v9.i4.378
Peer-review started: July 14, 2016
First decision: September 30, 2016
Revised: October 12, 2016
Accepted: January 16, 2017
Article in press: January 18, 2017
Published online: April 26, 2017
Processing time: 290 Days and 19.3 Hours
To compare the amount of contrast used during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via trans-radial access (TRA) vs trans-femoral access (TFA).
Scientific databases and websites were searched for:randomizedcontrolledtrials (RCTs). Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and was summarized as the weighted mean difference (WMD) of contrast used with a 95%CI using a random-effects model.
The meta-analysis included 13 RCTs with a total of 3165 patients. There was no difference between the two strategies in the amount of contrast used (WMD = - 0.65 mL, 95%CI: -10.94-9.46 mL; P = 0.901).
This meta-analysis shows that in patients undergoing PCI, the amount of contrast volume used was not different between TRA and TFA.
Core tip: Adaptation of radial access for percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with chronic kidney disease is slower because of concern about contrast-induced nephropathy from the greater contrast load. Data from individual studies vary; therefore we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the amount of contrast used between radial access and femoral access.