Cochrane · systematic review · CD012318
Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease
Kolkailah, AA, Alreshq, RS, Muhammed, AM, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
HeartAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 28.6%Moderate 3 · 42.9%High 2 · 28.6%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Transradial compared to transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease
Population: people with coronary artery disease undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Short‐term NACE Transradial vs transfemoral approach | RR 0.76 [0.61, 0.94] | 4 studies · 17133 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |
Short‐term cardiac death Transradial vs transfemoral approach | RR 0.69 [0.54, 0.88] | 11 studies · 11170 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |
Short‐term MI Transradial vs transfemoral approach | RR 0.91 [0.81, 1.02] | 11 studies · 19430 participants | High |
Success of the procedure Transradial vs transfemoral approach | RR 0.97 [0.96, 0.98] | 28 studies · 25920 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |
Short‐term all‐cause mortality Transradial vs transfemoral approach | RR 0.77 [0.62, 0.95] | 10 studies · 18955 participants | High |
Bleeding Transradial vs transfemoral approach | RR 0.54 [0.4, 0.74] | 20 studies · 23043 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |
Access site complications Transradial vs transfemoral approach | RR 0.36 [0.22, 0.59] | 24 studies · 16112 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |