Transradial approach for coronary angiography and intervention in the elderly: A meta-analysis of 777,841 patients.

[1]  S. Anderson,et al.  Impact of age on access site‐related outcomes in 469,983 percutaneous coronary intervention procedures: Insights from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society , 2015, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[2]  S. Nadar,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention in the elderly. , 2015, International journal of cardiology.

[3]  S. Mehta,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary angiography and intervention: insights from the RIVAL trial. , 2015, American heart journal.

[4]  Sunil V. Rao,et al.  Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[5]  J. Koyama,et al.  RADIAL VERSUS FEMORAL ACCESS FOR PRIMARY PERCUTANEOUS INTERVENTIONS IN ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME: A SUBANALYSIS OF THE SHINANO REGISTRY , 2015 .

[6]  Yuqi Liu,et al.  [Comparison of radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians with acute coronary syndrome]. , 2014, Zhonghua yi xue za zhi.

[7]  Mitchell W Krucoff,et al.  The Learning Curve for Transradial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Operators in the United States: A Study From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry , 2014, Circulation.

[8]  M. Mates,et al.  ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  A. Kastrati,et al.  Incidence and prognostic value of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients older than 75 years of age , 2014, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[10]  A. Bayés‐Genís,et al.  Results of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients ≥75 years treated by the transradial approach. , 2014, The American journal of cardiology.

[11]  S. Anderson,et al.  Baseline bleeding risk and arterial access site practice in relation to procedural outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  Mandeep Singh,et al.  An updated bleeding model to predict the risk of post-procedure bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report using an expanded bleeding definition from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[13]  A. Kastrati,et al.  Prognostic Value of Access and Non–Access Sites Bleeding After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , 2013, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[14]  John C. Messenger,et al.  Adoption of Radial Access and Comparison of Outcomes to Femoral Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (2007–2012) , 2013, Circulation.

[15]  R. Fattori,et al.  Transradial versus transfemoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary interventions in elderly patients. , 2013, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[16]  David J Cohen,et al.  Association between bleeding events and in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2013, JAMA.

[17]  L. Jacoby.  Effects of Radial versus Femoral Artery Access in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes with or without ST-segment Elevation , 2013 .

[18]  M. Mamas,et al.  Influence of access site choice on incidence of neurologic complications after percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2013, American heart journal.

[19]  E. Romagnoli,et al.  Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) study. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[20]  S. Qiao,et al.  Comparison between radial and femoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients aged 80 years or older. , 2012, Journal of interventional cardiology.

[21]  Lawrence Joseph,et al.  Comparison of transradial and femoral approaches for percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis. , 2012, American heart journal.

[22]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  Michael P. Thomas,et al.  Outcome of Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Elderly and the Very Elderly: Insights From the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium , 2011, Clinical cardiology.

[24]  John J. Graham,et al.  Characterization of Operator Learning Curve for Transradial Coronary Interventions , 2011, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[25]  Sunil V. Rao,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial , 2011, The Lancet.

[26]  D. Cohen,et al.  Economic impact of same-day home discharge after uncomplicated transradial percutaneous coronary intervention and bolus-only abciximab regimen. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[27]  A. Stang.  Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses , 2010, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[28]  J. Rodés‐Cabau,et al.  Transradial vs femoral percutaneous coronary intervention for left main disease in octogenarians. , 2010, Indian heart journal.

[29]  Goran Olivecrona,et al.  Radial vs. femoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians. , 2010, Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions.

[30]  P. Dehghani,et al.  Mechanism and predictors of failed transradial approach for percutaneous coronary interventions. , 2009, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[31]  D. Holmes,et al.  Bleeding, blood transfusion, and increased mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: implications for contemporary practice. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[32]  J. Fletcher.  Distribution , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[33]  S. Achenbach,et al.  Transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and intervention in patients above 75 years of age , 2008, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[34]  J. Baron,et al.  Periprocedural Stroke and Cardiac Catheterization , 2008, Circulation.

[35]  Yu-jie Zhou,et al.  Safety and feasibility of transradial approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction , 2008, Chinese medical journal.

[36]  J D Hilton,et al.  Association of the arterial access site at angioplasty with transfusion and mortality: the M.O.R.T.A.L study (Mortality benefit Of Reduced Transfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention via the Arm or Leg) , 2008, Heart.

[37]  R. Jaffe,et al.  Comparison of radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians , 2007, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[38]  A. Ziakas,et al.  A comparison of the radial and the femoral approaches in primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction in the elderly , 2007, Acute cardiac care.

[39]  S. Walsh,et al.  Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Elderly , 2007, The Ulster medical journal.

[40]  P. Garot,et al.  Comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and angioplasty in octogenarians (the OCTOPLUS study). , 2004, The American journal of cardiology.

[41]  K. Michaelsen,et al.  Prebiotic Oligosaccharides in Dietetic Products for Infants: A Commentary by the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition , 2004, Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition.

[42]  R. Warburton,et al.  Comparison of treatment outcomes in patients > or =80 years undergoing transradial versus transfemoral coronary intervention. , 2004, The American journal of cardiology.

[43]  K. Harjai,et al.  Characteristics of cerebrovascular accidents after percutaneous coronary interventions. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[44]  S. Isoyama,et al.  Effectiveness of right or left radial approach for coronary angiography , 2004, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[45]  F. Song,et al.  Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[46]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[47]  Katherine C. Wu,et al.  Distribution, Severity and Risk Factors for Aortic Atherosclerosis in Cerebral Ischemia , 2000, Cerebrovascular Diseases.

[48]  R. Sacco,et al.  Aortic atheroma morphology and the risk of ischemic stroke in a multiethnic population. , 2000, American heart journal.

[49]  K. Sakakura,et al.  Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction reduces CCU stay in patients 80 or older. , 2012, International heart journal.

[50]  E. Romagnoli,et al.  Transradial approach (left vs right) and procedural times during percutaneous coronary procedures: TALENT study. , 2011, American heart journal.

[51]  Salim Yusuf,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. , 2009, American heart journal.