Background: The clinical efficacy and safety of transradial (TR) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in comparison to transfemoral (TF) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) is not well studied in literature. Objectives: We sought to study the outcome and complications associated with TR compared with TF for CTO interventions.
Methods: After a systematic literature search was done in PubMed and EMBASE, we performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing TF and TR for CTO PCI. Results: Twelve studies with 19,309 patients were included. Compared to those who has TF access, individuals who were treated via TR approach had statistically significant lower access complication rates [odds ratio (OR): 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22 to 0.49; p < 0.0001]. The procedural success was in the favor of TR method (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.31-1. 51; p < 0.0001). The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and contrast-induced nephropathy were similar in both groups.
Conclusion: When compared with TF access interventions in CTO PCI; the TR approach appears to be associated with far less access-site complications, higher procedural success, and comparable MACCE.
Keywords: Chronic total occlusion; percutaneous coronary intervention; transfemoral access; transradial access; vascular complication.