1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Radial first or patient first: a case series and meta-analysis of transradial versus transfemoral access for acute ischemic stroke intervention

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Few studies have compared technical success and effectiveness of transradial access (TRA) versus transfemoral access (TFA) for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We compared the two approaches for technical success, effectiveness, and outcomes.

          Methods

          We retrospectively compared TRA with TFA for AIS MT at our institute. We additionally performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies describing the use of TRA alone or in comparison with TFA for MT. Primary outcomes included rate of successful reperfusion (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) >2b), number of passes, access-site complications, and 3- month mortality and favorable functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0–2).

          Results

          A total of 222 consecutive patients (TRA=93, TFA=129) were included in our case series. The rate of successful reperfusion was significantly higher for the TFA cohort (91.4% vs 79.6%, P=0.01) with lower mean number of passes (1.8±1.2 vs 2.4±1.6, P=0.014). Three-month mortality in the TFA group was lower (22.1% vs 40.9% for the TRA cohort (P=0.004), with a higher rate of favorable functional outcomes (51.3% vs 34.1%, P=0.015). A meta-analysis of 10 studies showed significant heterogeneity in rates of successful reperfusion (57.1% to 95.6%, heterogeneity=67.55%, P=0.001). None of the previous comparative studies reported 3-month mortality and functional outcomes.

          Conclusions

          This case series demonstrate a higher successful reperfusion rate, fewer passes, lower 3-month mortality, and improved 3-month functional outcomes with TFA. The systematic review highlights the inadequacy of existing evidence. Prospective comparative studies are needed before a ‘radial-first’ approach can be adopted for stroke intervention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials.

          In 2015, five randomised trials showed efficacy of endovascular thrombectomy over standard medical care in patients with acute ischaemic stroke caused by occlusion of arteries of the proximal anterior circulation. In this meta-analysis we, the trial investigators, aimed to pool individual patient data from these trials to address remaining questions about whether the therapy is efficacious across the diverse populations included.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Aspiration thrombectomy versus stent retriever thrombectomy as first-line approach for large vessel occlusion (COMPASS): a multicentre, randomised, open label, blinded outcome, non-inferiority trial

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria

              Objectives: The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard. Methods: The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel. Results: The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items. Conclusions: There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely from http://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/ .
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
                J NeuroIntervent Surg
                BMJ
                1759-8478
                1759-8486
                July 14 2021
                August 2021
                August 2021
                February 25 2021
                : 13
                : 8
                : 687-692
                Article
                10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-017225
                33632879
                627e62ab-cc2c-4d12-89e2-0af9ebe932e9
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article