Distal versus conventional radial access for coronary angiography and intervention: Design and rationale of DISCO RADIAL study

Comparison of radial artery occlusion between traditional radial access and distal radial access for coronary angiography and intervention: A prospective cohort study

Background

The radial approach is now recommended as the default strategy in diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the most common complication that limits subsequent angiographic procedures through this access. Recently, distal radial access (DRA) has been recommended as an alternative access site. Despite lower RAO rates in DRA in some recent clinical trials, concerns remain regarding possible complications and limitations due to the small size of the distal radial artery.

Objective

The present study aimed to compare traditional radial access (TRA) and DRA concerning RAO in percutaneous coronary procedures.

Methods

In the present prospective cohort study, percutaneous coronary procedures were performed via DRA or TRA in 2 study groups. All consecutive participants underwent DRA from September 2021 to March 2022 and TRA from April 2022 to June 2022. Ultrasonography was performed preprocedurally in the DRA group, and patients with small distal artery diameters (<2 mm) were excluded. The same 6-Fr sheaths and standard air-filled compression devices were used in both groups. The primary endpoint was RAO in ultrasound sonography on the first postprocedural day, and the secondary endpoints were the success rate, access time, angiography time, radial artery spasms, and vascular access complications.

Results

A total of 298 patients were assigned to the DRA group and 278 to the TRA group. The RAO rate was significantly higher in the TRA group than in the DRA group (10.1 % vs 0.9 %; P = 0.0001; OR, 0.08, 95 % CI, 0.01-0.27). The success rate was significantly higher in the TRA group (96 % vs 90.2 %; P = 0.009). Access crossovers were done on 12 patients (4.0 %) in the TRA group and 24 patients (9.8 %) in the DRA group (P < 0.001). The mean access time was significantly lower in the TRA group than in the DRA group (1.9 min vs 2.9 min; P < 0.001). The mean angiography time did not significantly differ between the groups (10.2 min in the TRA group vs 9.9 min in the DRA group). The rate of radial artery spasms was not significantly different between the 2 groups (13.8 % in the TRA group vs 14.5 % in the DRA group). The rates of access site hematoma (12.4 % vs 2.3 %; P < 0.001) and bleeding (10.7 % vs 4.1; P = 0.005) were significantly higher in the TRA group.

Conclusions

DRA was safe and feasible with lower rates of RAO and access site complications than TRA. Thus, it could be used as an alternative approach in percutaneous coronary procedures. However, the trade-off for these advantages of DRA is an increase in cross-over rate, and a decrease in puncture success rate.

Incidence and Prognostic Factors of Radial Artery Occlusion in Transradial Coronary Catheterization

Background/Objectives: Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the most common complication of transradial coronary catheterization. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the incidence of RAO and identify the risk factors that predispose patients to it. Methods: We conducted an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, open-label study involving 1357 patients who underwent cardiac catheterization via the transradial route for angiography and/or a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify potential predictors of RAO occurrence. Additionally, a subgroup analysis only for patients undergoing PCIs was performed. Results: The incidence of RAO was 9.5% overall, 10.6% in the angiography-only group and 6.2% in the PCI group. Independent predictors of RAO were as follows: (i) the female gender (aOR = 1.72 (1.05-2.83)), (ii) access site cross-over (aOR = 4.33 (1.02-18.39)), (iii) increased total time of the sheath in the artery (aOR = 1.01 (1.00-1.02)), (iv) radial artery spasms (aOR = 2.47 (1.40-4.36)), (v) the presence of a hematoma (aOR = 2.28 (1.28-4.06)), (vi) post-catheterization dabigatran use (aOR = 5.15 (1.29-20.55)), (vii) manual hemostasis (aOR = 1.94 (1.01-3.72)) and (viii) numbness at radial artery ultrasound (aOR = 8.25 (1.70-40)). Contrariwise, two variables were independently associated with increased odds for radial artery patency (RAP): (i) PCI performance (aOR = 0.19 (0.06-0.63)), and (ii) a higher dosage of intravenous heparin per patient weight (aOR = 0.98 (0.96-0.99)), particularly, a dosage of >50 IU/kg (aOR = 0.56 (0.31-1.00)). In the PCI subgroup, independent predictors of RAO were as follows: (i) radial artery spasms (aOR = 4.48 (1.42-14.16)), (ii) the use of intra-arterial nitroglycerin as a vasodilator (aOR = 7.40 (1.67-32.79)) and (iii) the presence of symptoms at echo (aOR = 3.80 (1.46-9.87)), either pain (aOR = 2.93 (1.05-8.15)) or numbness (aOR = 4.66 (1.17-18.57)). On the other hand, the use of intra-arterial verapamil as a vasodilator (aOR = 0.17 (0.04-0.76)) was independently associated with a greater frequency of RAP. Conclusions: The incidence of RAO in an unselected, all-comers European population after transradial coronary catheterization for angiography and/or PCIs is similar to that reported in the international literature. Several RAO prognostic factors have been confirmed, and new ones are described. The female gender, radial artery trauma and manual hemostasis are the strongest predictors of RAO. Our results could help in the future identification of patients at higher risk of RAO, for whom less invasive diagnostic procedures maybe preferred, if possible.

The eft Dstal ransradial ccess site cold give a safe alterate sit for trasradial coronary inervention (The Study)

Transradial Access (TRA) is the suggested method when performing coronary procedures. TRA has several advantages over the transfemoral approach, but also some restrictions. The present study compared the efficacy and safety of the traditional proximal transradial approach (pTRA) with a newer technique known as the distal transradial approach (dTRA) for performing a coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients (n = 700) were placed into one of two categories (dTRA or pTRA) based on a random technique. The primary endpoint was RAO at follow-up. The secondary endpoints included the time required for sheath insertion, the rate of successful sheath insertion, rate of successful completion of CAG and PCI, total procedure time, total fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, total contrast volume used, pain perception (visual analog scale 0-10), and hemostasis duration. dTRA patients had more skin punctures, failed punctures, failed wiring, overlap of access sites, sheath insertion time, and pain evaluation scale, while the pTRA group had more hemostasis time and first-time cannulation. RAO and pseudoaneurysm (PseA) were lower in the dTRA group. In this randomized study, dTRA had lower RAO and PseA than pTRA. However, multicenter, larger-patient trials are needed to provide definitive evidence.

Effectiveness and Safety of Left Distal Transradial Access in Coronary Procedures in the Caribbean

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study investigated the effectiveness and safety of left distal transradial access (LDTRA) in patients with cardiovascular disease in Trinidad undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHOD

Procedural parameters, including technical success and safety outcomes such as vascular complications and radial artery occlusion (RAO), were assessed in 111 consecutive patients undergoing CAG or PCI from January 2023 to June 2023 at the Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex, Trinidad and Tobago. Eighty-eight patients underwent LDTRA, while 23 received left transradial access (LTRA).

RESULTS

There was no difference in procedural success with LDTRA compared to LTRA, 90.9% vs. 100%, p-value 0.202, non-significant (ns). LDTRA was associated with shorter fluoroscopy times (8.4 ± 6.8 minutes vs. 12.4 ± 7.7 minutes, p-value = 0.02), procedural duration (26.7 ± 18 minutes vs. 35.8 ± 20 minutes, p-value = 0.04), and hemostasis time (142 ± 41 minutes vs. 186 ± 44 minutes, p-value < 0.05). There were no significant differences in procedural-related complications (8% for LDTRA vs. 4.3% for LTRA, p-value = 0.476, ns). There were no reported cases of RAO. In the subgroup of patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the fluoroscopy and procedure times were similar for both access sites; however, LDTRA was associated with a shorter hemostasis time (128 ± 30 minutes vs. 194 ± 39 minutes, p-value = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

LDTRA is effective and safe for coronary procedures and is associated with a shorter hemostasis time. This study may prove clinically pertinent in a limited-resource Caribbean setting.

Open Radial Artery Study

Radial artery occlusion (RAO) has been the most common postprocedural complication of transradial artery access. The optimal method of prevention of RAO is still lacking. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of patent hemostasis on early (24 hours) and late (2 weeks) RAO prevention. The Open Radial Artery Study was a single-arm, prospective, and multicenter study. The primary end points were early and late RAO at the vascular access site after transradial coronary procedures. Secondary end points were access site hematoma, pseudoaneurysm formation, arteriovenous fistula, and nerve injury. A total of 2,181 patients were analyzed (67% male, mean age 68 years). The mean interventional duration and hemostatic times were 75.6 ± 55.6 and 60 ± 5.6 minutes, respectively. Radial artery spasm occurred in 10% of patients (n = 218). Catheter kinking, radial artery rupture, or dissection were not observed during the procedure. RAO, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, or nerve damage was not observed in any of the patients in the early or late period. In patients who undergo coronary diagnostic or interventional procedures through transradial artery access, the patent hemostasis method seems a critical step in the prevention of early and late RAO.

Making Neuroendovascular Therapy for Cerebrovascular Disease Using Distal/Trans-radial Artery Access Safer

Neuroendovascular therapy using distal/trans-radial artery access (d/TRA) has attracted attention as a less invasive procedure. We have selected dTRA or TRA in all cases of carotid artery stenting (CAS). In recent years, TRA has been actively selected for mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke (MT for AIS) and Onyx embolisation for arteriovenous malformations. We compared the patient background, surgical strategy, perioperative complications, and outcome in 41 patients who underwent CAS in the first period (Apr 2017-Feb 2019) and 12 patients in the second period (Apr 2020-Feb 2022) avoiding trans-femoral artery access (TFA) as possible. We compared the patient background, surgical strategy, perioperative complications, and outcome in 46 patients who underwent MT for AIS via TFA from Apr 2022 to Dec 2022 as the first period and five patients who underwent MT for AIS via TRA from Jan 2023 to Sep 2023 as the second period. Concerning CAS, the second period included significantly more symptomatic cases, with a higher rate of edaravone use to prevent hyperperfusion and a significantly smaller sheath diameter. In the second period, CAS was performed in severe conditions; nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of either the ratio of cases detected by postoperative diffusion-weighted imaging positive or the ratio of cases with puncture site-related complications (PSCs). Concerning MT for AIS, there were no significant differences between the two groups with the patient backgrounds. The percentage of effective reperfusion, time from puncture to recanalisation, and outcome in the second period were all non-inferior to those in the first period when conventional MT for AIS was performed. Even though we introduced d/TRA in patients with cognitive decline and inability to remain at rest during the perioperative period, we completely avoided PSCs via d/TRA. In particular, cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome after CAS and ischaemia-reperfusion injury or re-occlusion after MT were rare but critical perioperative complications, and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) may be used to monitor these problems. We introduced intensive evaluation by NIRS if we had time to spare.

Comparison Between Distal Trans-radial Access and Conventional Trans-radial Access for Coronary Angiography

Background Compared with a conventional wrist puncture for radial artery catheterization, a distal radial artery puncture has the advantage of reducing the incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO). Aim The present study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of distal trans-radial access compared with conventional trans-radial access for coronary angiography. Methods A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, comparative study was conducted at a tertiary care center in India between December 2018 and November 2020. A total of 420 patients (aged >18 years) with signs and symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease (CAD) and with a palpable radial artery in anatomical snuffbox were randomized into two groups. Group A comprised patients accessed at the distal trans-radial site, and Group B consisted of patients accessed at the conventional trans-radial site for coronary angiography. Baseline demographics, clinical history, and risk factors for CAD were documented. Procedural-related parameters and complications were compared between the two groups. Results The procedural success rate was non-significant between Group A and Group B (96% vs. 98%; p=0.38). Puncture in a single attempt was higher in Group B compared to Group A (92% vs. 78%; p<0.001). There was no significant difference between Group A and Group B for operation time (p=0.207), fluoroscopy time (p=0.183), and contrast volume (p=0.345). The rate of RAO was higher in Group B compared to Group A (13% vs. 2%; p<0.001). Radial artery hematoma/swelling at the puncture site between Group A (10%) and Group B (8%) was not significant (p=0.61). Post-procedural hemostasis time in Group A was 28 ± 7.86 minutes, and in Group B was 24 ± 6.23 minutes. Both post-procedural persistence of pain (p<0.001) and hand clumsiness (p<0.001) were significantly higher in Group B compared to Group A. Conclusion For coronary angiography, the distal trans-radial access site is a reliable and secure alternate access site.

Nurse-led distal radial access: efficacy, learning curve, and perspectives of an increasingly popular access. Does learning by doing apply to both the doctor and the nurse?

BACKGROUND

The distal radial represents an evolution of the standard radial approach. Distal radial arterial access (DRA) in the so-called "anatomical snuffbox" is technically more difficult but offers potential advantages for patients. Moreover, the use of the distal radial would preserve the proximal radial from the risk of arterial occlusion after interventional procedures performed through the radial artery.

METHODS

We enrolled 100 consecutive elective patients undergoing cardiac catheterization (diagnostic or procedural). Arterial access to the distal radial was entirely managed by nursing staff supervised by the interventional cardiologist. In this single-centre single-operator experienced study, the same nurse operator performed puncture, wiring, and sheath advancement.

RESULTS

The technical feasibility was 89% and the failure rate occurred in the first 50 cases as evidenced by the learning curve. There were no major complications and the rate of minor complications is in line with that of the radial literature. BMI (OR 1.19; 95% CI: 1.03-1.38), non-radial dominance (OR 3.5; 95% CI: 1.04-12.3) and operator's experience (OR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.35-0.99 for every 20 consecutive cases performed) were associated with DRA failures.

CONCLUSIONS

The experience is encouraging and beneficial for all staff and patients with a high percentage of technical success and few mild complications.

Safety and feasibility of a 7F thin-walled sheath via distal transradial artery access for complex coronary intervention

Background

Compared with traditional trans-radial artery access (TRA), there are limited data that can confirm the efficacy and safety of a 7F thin-walled sheath placed via distal TRA (dTRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Objective

This study aims to analyze the safety and efficacy of the placement of a 7F thin-walled sheath via dTRA for PCI.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective observational study in which 102 patients who received complex PCIs with a 7F thin-walled sheath placed via dTRA in the catheter room of our hospital from May 2020 to October 2021 were included. The basic information, puncture success rate, radial artery occlusion (RAO) rate, radial artery lumen diameter and area, surgical data, pain score, and complication rate were observed and recorded.

Results

The puncture success rate was 90.2% in the 102 patients, and the success rate of the operation was 97.8% among 92 patients with a successful puncture. The PCIs for patients included emergency PCIs and all types of complex PCIs. Color Doppler ultrasound performed at 1 and 30 d after the procedure showed that the RAO rate was 2.2%, the distal RAO rate was 3.3%, the postoperative average pain score was 2.2 points, and there were five patients (5.4%) with local hematoma, all of which were grade 1–2. Radial artery spasm and nervous injury occurred in two patients (2.2%), and arteriovenous fistula occurred in one patient (1.1%). Radial artery perforation, radial artery dissection, pseudoaneurysm, and sheath kinking did not occur.

Conclusion

The placement of a 7F thin-walled sheath via dTRA for PCI showed a high puncture and procedural success rate, a low postoperative RAO rate, and a low incidence of local hematoma and other complications. The placement of a 7F Glidesheath Slender^®via dTRA for PCI is safe and feasible.

Distal Versus Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: The DISCO RADIAL Trial

BACKGROUND

Currently, transradial access (TRA) is the recommended access for coronary procedures because of increased safety, with radial artery occlusion (RAO) being its most frequent complication, which will increasingly affect patients undergoing multiple procedures during their lifetimes. Recently, distal radial access (DRA) has emerged as a promising alternative access to minimize RAO risk. A large-scale, international, randomized trial comparing RAO with TRA and DRA is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the superiority of DRA compared with conventional TRA with respect to forearm RAO.

METHODS

DISCO RADIAL (Distal vs Conventional Radial Access) was an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in which patients with indications for percutaneous coronary procedure using a 6-F Slender sheath were randomized to DRA or TRA with systematic implementation of best practices to reduce RAO. The primary endpoint was the incidence of forearm RAO assessed by vascular ultrasound at discharge. Secondary endpoints include crossover, hemostasis time, and access site-related complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 657 patients underwent TRA, and 650 patients underwent DRA. Forearm RAO did not differ between groups (0.91% vs 0.31%; P = 0.29). Patent hemostasis was achieved in 94.4% of TRA patients. Crossover rates were higher with DRA (3.5% vs 7.4%; P = 0.002), and median hemostasis time was shorter (180 vs 153 minutes; P < 0.001). Radial artery spasm occurred more with DRA (2.7% vs 5.4%; P = 0.015). Overall bleeding events and vascular complications did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With the implementation of a rigorous hemostasis protocol, DRA and TRA have equally low RAO rates. DRA is associated with a higher crossover rate but a shorter hemostasis time.

Could radiation exposure be the Achilles' heel of distal transradial artery access?

Distal transradial access for vascular interventions has gained ground recently. While the novel approach is associated with reduced radial artery occlusion and faster hemostasis, it could be related with prolonged procedural time, higher crossover rate and increased radiation, comparing to conventional transradial approach. Whether the radiation is increased in the procedures performed by the novel approach remains unambiguous. In the specific article, we aim to review the current literature and to propose possible explanations for this phenomenon. Could radiation be the Achilles’ heel of distal transradial artery access?

Safety and efficacy of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via distal transradial artery access in the anatomical snuffbox: a single-centre prospective cohort study using a propensity score method

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the safety and efficacy of coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via distal transradial artery access (d-TRA).

METHODS

For this single-centre prospective cohort study, a total of 1066 patients who underwent CAG or PCI procedures from September 2019 to November 2020 were included. Patients were divided into two groups: the d-TRA group (346) and the conventional transradial artery access (c-TRA) group (720) based on access site. A total of 342 pairs of patients were successfully matched using propensity score matching (PSM) for subsequent analysis.

RESULTS

No significant differences in puncture success rate, procedural method, procedural time, sheath size, contrast dosage or fluoroscopy time were noted between the two groups. The puncture time in the d-TRA group was longer than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01), and the procedure success rate was lower than that in the c-TRA group (90.94% vs. 96.49%, P = 0.01). The haemostasis time in the d-TRA group was shorter than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01), and the visual analogue scale (VAS) was lower than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01). In addition, the prevalence of bleeding and haematoma in the d-TRA group was lower than that in the c-TRA group (1.75% vs. 7.31%, P < 0.01; 0.58% vs. 3.22%, P = 0.01, respectively). No significant difference in the incidence of numbness was noted between the two groups. No other complications were found in two groups.

CONCLUSION

d-TRA is as safe and effective as c-TRA for CAG and PCI. It has the advantages of improved comfort and fewer complications. Trail registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900026519.

Distal Radial Artery Access for Coronary and Peripheral Procedures: A Multicenter Experience

INTRODUCTION

Distal radial access (dRA) has recently gained global popularity as an alternative access route for vascular procedures. Among the benefits of dRA are the low risk of entry site bleeding complications, the low rate of radial artery occlusion, and improved patient and operator comfort. The aim of this large multicenter registry was to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of dRA in a wide variety of routine procedures in the catheterization laboratory, ranging from coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention to peripheral procedures.

METHODS

The study comprised 1240 patients who underwent coronary angiography, PCI or noncoronary procedures through dRA in two Hungarian centers from January 2019 to April 2021. Baseline patient characteristics, number and duration of arterial punctures, procedural success rate, crossover rate, postoperative compression time, complications, hospitalization duration, and different learning curves were analyzed.

RESULTS

The average patient age was 66.4 years, with 66.8% of patients being male. The majority of patients (74.04%) underwent a coronary procedure, whereas 25.96% were involved in noncoronary interventions. dRA was successfully punctured in 97% of all patients, in all cases with ultrasound guidance. Access site crossover was performed in 2.58% of the patients, mainly via the contralateral dRA. After experiencing 150 cases, the dRA success rate plateaued at >96%. Our dedicated dRA step-by step protocol resulted in high open radial artery (RA) rates: distal and proximal RA pulses were palpable in 99.68% of all patients at hospital discharge. The rate of minor vascular complications was low (1.5%). A threshold of 50 cases was sufficient for already skilled radial operators to establish a reliable procedural method of dRA access.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of distal radial artery access in the everyday routine of a catheterization laboratory for coronary and noncoronary interventions is feasible and safe with an acceptable learning curve.