Transradial Access Versus Transfemoral Approach for Carotid Artery Stenting: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

BACKGROUND Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a viable alternative to carotid endarterectomy for managing carotid artery stenosis in high‐risk patients. Although transfemoral arterial access remains the preferred method, it is associated with inherent limitations and potential complications. Consequently, exploring transradial artery access as a potential option becomes crucial in optimizing patient outcomes and procedural success rates. There are limited data comparing the outcomes of the transradial with the transfemoral approach for CAS. This study aimed to systematically review and meta‐analyze the outcomes and complication rates between transradial and transfemoral access for CAS. METHODS A systematic electronic search was conducted in 4 databases. Studies with randomized or nonrandomized designs, involving CAS by the transradial or transfemoral approach, were included. Outcomes of interest were stroke, transient ischemic attack, death, myocardial infarction, and access site complications. A meta‐analysis was performed, analyzing pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to assess the effect size. RESULTS Six studies with a total of 6917 patients were included, of whom 602 (8.7%) underwent the transradial approach and 6315 (91.3%) the transfemoral approach. The meta‐analysis showed no significant difference in stroke occurrence between the transradial and transfemoral groups (transradial:1.7% versus transfemoral:1.9%; OR = 0.98 [95% CI, 0.49–1.96]; I 2 = 0%). Similarly, no significant difference was found in death (TR:1% versus transfemoral:0.9%; OR = 0.95 [95% CI, 0.38–2.37]; I 2 = 0%), myocardial infarction (transradial:0.2% versus transfemoral:0.3%; OR = 1.53 [95% CI, 0.20–11.61]; I 2 = 0%), transient ischemic attack (transradial:0.4% versus transfemoral:1%; OR = 0.46 [95% CI, 0.11–1.95]; I 2 = 0%), or access site complications (transradial:2.2% versus transfemoral:1%; OR = 0.97 [95% CI, 0.48–1.98]; I 2 = 0%). CONCLUSION No significant differences were observed in stroke, death, myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack, or access site complications on comparing thetransradial and transfemoral approaches for CAS. The transradial approach shows promise as an alternative method for CAS, offering potential benefits without increased risk of complications. However, further studies are needed to confirm these findings.