Abstract 250: Radial vs femoral access for neuroendovascular diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. A systematic review and Meta‐analysis
Authors: Sequeiros Joel D. , Terry Fernando , Singla Ramit , Alkhaddas Ra’ed , Lafi Ibrahim , Abualhayja’a Ali , Gaudio Elizabeth , Bradley Bobby D. , Graham Shelby , Rodriguez Miguel , Burns‐Martin Jared S. , Padilla Mariella , Fernandez Daniel , Zena Sandra , Cruzalegui Claudia , Pascual Milagros , Quispe Carlos , Chavez Fabian , Inoa Violiza , Hoit Daniel , Arthur Adam , Hoffman Haydn , Luther Evan , Starke Robert , Goyal Nitin 
Published: March 2024

Introduction
Transradial access (TRA) has become increasingly utilized among neurointerventionalists. There is evidence of reduced complications and higher patient satisfaction compared to transfemoral access (TFA), but more data directly comparing the safety and efficacy of the two approaches is needed. To assess the proportion of technical success and complications with TRA versus TFA in patients who underwent neuroendovascular diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

Methods
PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct a systematic review of the literature with PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to February 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies that compared TRA and TFA were included. Studies reporting results of patients who underwent diagnostic angiograms, endovascular management of acute stroke, aneurysm repair, and carotid or vertebral stenting were included. Our primary outcome was technical success, defined as successful arterial access and completion of the intended procedure without crossover. Secondary safety outcomes were rate of complications including access site and non‐access site related, and other efficacy measures such as procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and radiation exposure. Random effects model was used to perform a meta‐analysis. The Mantel‐Haenszel method was used to calculate risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each outcome. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 and considered high if over 70%.

Results
Twenty‐nine studies comprising 14,523 patients met inclusion criteria. TRA was attempted in 5,865 (40.38%) patients and TFA in 8,658 (59.62%). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The rate of technical success was 95.46% (95% CI: 93.59 – 96.81; p < 0.01) in the TRA group compared with 98.43% (95% CI: 97.60 – 98.97; p = 0.02) in the TFA group. Patients who underwent a diagnostic or therapeutic angiogram via TRA had a slightly lower chance of achieving technical success (RR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96 – 0.99; p < 0.01) compared to TFA, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 68%). Major access site complications were non‐significantly lower in the TRA group (RR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.29 – 1.41; p = 0.81) with null heterogenicity (I2 = 0%) between groups. Minor access site complications were significantly lower in the TRA group (RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.28 – 0.67; p < 0.01), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 57%). Non‐access site related complications (including mortality) were lower in the TRA group (RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.51 – 0.94; p = 0.14) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 26%) between groups; for this outcome, the TRA approach shows a protective but not statistically significant result.

Conclusion
Our study suggests TRA is feasible and safe for diagnostic and therapeutic neuroendovascular procedures with low certainty of evidence. Minor complications were lower in the TRA group. RCTs directly comparing TRA vs TFA for these procedures are needed to confirm these results.