Efficacy and safety of transradial versus transfemoral access for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundMechanical thrombectomy for ischemic stroke has traditionally been performed via transfemoral access (TFA). However, newer literature on the subject suggests that transradial access (TRA) may be equally efficacious.MethodsOnline databases (including PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane) were queried from inception until May 2024. Abstracts and full texts were screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Risk of bias assessment was performed using standardized screening tools. All dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RevMan was used to perform the statistical analysis.ResultsThirteen observational studies and one randomized clinical trial (RCT) were included in this meta-analysis. The total sample size was 4973, 4074 patients (81.2%) were in the TFA group, and 899 (18.8%) were in the TRA group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of successful recanalization (OR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.66-1.27; p = 0.60), first-pass recanalization (OR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.69-1.01, p = 0.06), access to reperfusion time (mean difference -2.99 min; 95% CI -8.33 to 2.44, p = 0.27), and favorable functional outcome. Mortality and rates of intracranial hemorrhage were comparable between the two groups, but access site complications were significantly lower in the TRA group (OR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.37-0.88; p = 0.01).ConclusionTRA for thrombectomy in large vessel ischemic strokes is comparable to TFA in terms of efficacy and has a lower incidence of access site complications. RCT data comparison of the two techniques is limited, underscoring the importance of conducting trials.

BackgroundMechanical thrombectomy for ischemic stroke has traditionally been performed via transfemoral access (TFA). However, newer literature on the subject suggests that transradial access (TRA) may be equally efficacious.MethodsOnline databases (including PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane) were queried from inception until May 2024. Abstracts and full texts were screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Risk of bias assessment was performed using standardized screening tools. All dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RevMan was used to perform the statistical analysis.ResultsThirteen observational studies and one randomized clinical trial (RCT) were included in this meta-analysis. The total sample size was 4973, 4074 patients (81.2%) were in the TFA group, and 899 (18.8%) were in the TRA group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of successful recanalization (OR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.66-1.27; p = 0.60), first-pass recanalization (OR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.69-1.01, p = 0.06), access to reperfusion time (mean difference -2.99 min; 95% CI -8.33 to 2.44, p = 0.27), and favorable functional outcome. Mortality and rates of intracranial hemorrhage were comparable between the two groups, but access site complications were significantly lower in the TRA group (OR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.37-0.88; p = 0.01).ConclusionTRA for thrombectomy in large vessel ischemic strokes is comparable to TFA in terms of efficacy and has a lower incidence of access site complications. RCT data comparison of the two techniques is limited, underscoring the importance of conducting trials.