4.3 Review

Gender Disparity in the Safety and Efficacy of Radial and Femoral Access for Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

ANGIOLOGY
Volume 67, Issue 9, Pages 810-819

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0003319715621164

Keywords

sex characteristics; radial access; femoral access; percutaneous coronary intervention; outcome

Funding

  1. National High-Tech Research and Development Program of China, Beijing, China [2012AA02A510]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing, China [81370219]
  3. Supporting Project of Sichuan Provincial Department of Science and Technology, Sichuan, China [2012FZ0065, 2014SZ0004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our aim was to investigate the gender disparity in the safety and efficacy of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; TRI) and transfemoral PCI (TFI) by a meta-analysis. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies on vascular access with sex-specific events available or studies on sex difference with the events reported by vascular access. Fifteen studies involving 3 921 848 participants were included. Transradial PCI significantly reduced the risk of bleeding complications in both sexes (TRI-versus-TFI odds ratio [OR]: 0.37 in females vs 0.47 in males) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in females (OR: 0.70, P < .001) but not in males (OR: 0.83, P = .15) compared to TFI. Transradial PCI diminished the sex difference in the incidence of bleeding complications (female-versus-male OR: 1.82 with TRI vs 2.39 with TFI; interaction P = .01) and MACE (female-versus-male OR: 1.21 with TRI vs 1.41 with TFI; interaction P = .003) compared to TFI. Females were associated with higher crossover rate in the TRI subgroup but not in the TFI subgroup (interaction P = .05). In conclusion, TRI may improve the safety and efficacy of outcomes in both sexes and be an effective means to cut down the gender difference in prognosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available