Key result
Ultrasound-guided transfemoral access for coronary procedures reduced 30-day major vascular complications or major bleeding compared to non-ultrasound guidance (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.94; p=0.026).
Why the study?
Randomised controlled trials of ultrasound-guided transfemoral access for coronary procedures had shown mixed results.
Does ultrasound-guided transfemoral access reduce the composite of major vascular complications or major bleeding in patients undergoing coronary procedures?
Meta-Analysis (n=2,441)
Yes
Does ultrasound-guided transfemoral access reduce the composite of major vascular complications or major bleeding in patients undergoing coronary procedures?
Odds Ratio: 0.61 (95% CI 0.39–0.94)
Absolute Event Rate: 2.8% vs 4.5%
p-value: p=0.026
Ultrasound guidance for transfemoral access during coronary procedures significantly reduces major vascular complications or major bleeding, particularly when a vascular closure device is used.
BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials of ultrasound (US)-guided transfemoral access (TFA) for coronary procedures have shown mixed results. AIMS: We aimed to compare US-guided versus non-US-guided TFA from randomised data in an individual participant-level data (IPD) meta-analysis. METHODS: We completed a systematic review and an IPD meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials comparing US-guided versus non-US-guided TFA for coronary procedures. We performed a one-stage mixed-model meta-analysis using the intention-to-treat population from included trials. The primary outcome was a composite of major vascular complications or major bleeding within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 2,441 participants (1,208 US-guided, 1,233 non-US-guided) from 4 randomised clinical trials were included. The mean age was 65.5 years, 27.0% were female, and 34.5% underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention. The incidence of major vascular complications or major bleeding (34/1,208 [2.8%] vs 55/1,233 [4.5%]; odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-0.94; p=0.026) was lower in the US-guided TFA group. In the prespecified subgroup of participants who received a vascular closure device, those randomised to US-guided TFA experienced a reduction in the primary outcome (2.1% vs 5.6%; OR 0.36, 95% CI: 0.19-0.69), while no benefit for US guidance was observed in the subgroup without vascular closure devices (4.1% vs 3.3%; OR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.65-2.26; interaction p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In participants undergoing coronary procedures by TFA, US guidance decreased the composite outcome of major vascular complications or bleeding and may be especially helpful when using vascular closure devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
d’Entremont et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary procedures requiring transfemoral access (n=2,441). Ultrasound-guided transfemoral access vs. Non-ultrasound-guided transfemoral access was evaluated on Composite of major vascular complications or major bleeding within 30 days (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.94, p=0.026). Ultrasound-guided transfemoral access for coronary procedures reduced 30-day major vascular complications or major bleeding compared to non-ultrasound guidance (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.94; p=0.026).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: