Distal versus proximal radial artery access for cardiac catheterization and intervention: Design and rationale of the DIPRA trial

Outcomes of graft angiography with distal radial access: a retrospective cohort study

Background: This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the outcomes of graft angiography using these two approaches. Methods: Medical records and angiographic data of adult patients who underwent graft angiography between January 2020 and December 2022 were analyzed. Results: The study included 452 patients in the distal radial access (DRA) group and 960 patients in the femoral access group. Angiographic characteristics showed a higher prevalence of triple vessel disease in the femoral access group (29.8% vs. 20.8%; p = 0.012). The DRA group had a procedural success rate of 93.0%, while the femoral access group had a higher success rate of 95.8%. The odds ratio was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.46-0.94), indicating lower odds of procedural success in the DRA group. Conclusion: Our study suggests that both DRA and femoral access are effective and safe approaches for graft angiography after coronary artery bypass surgery.

Distal Versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization: 1-Year Outcomes

Proximal radial artery (PRA) access for cardiac catheterization is safe but can jeopardize subsequent use of the artery because of occlusion. Distal radial artery (DRA) access in the anatomical snuffbox preserves the RA but safety and potential detrimental effects on hand function are unknown. We aimed to assess hand function and complications after DRA and PRA. In this single-center trial, 300 patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through DRA or PRA. The primary end point of change in hand function from baseline to 1 year was a composite of the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand grip test, and thumb-forefinger pinch test. The secondary end points included access feasibility and complications. Of 216 patients with 1-year completed follow-up, 112 were randomly allocated to DRA and 104 to PRA, with balanced demographics and procedural characteristics. Both groups had similar access site bleeding rates (DRA 0% vs PRA 1.4%, p = 0.25). Radial artery occlusion occurred in 1 PRA patient versus 2 in DRA. There was no significant difference in change of hand function, median (interquartile range) hand grip (DRA 0.7 [-3 to 4.5] vs PRA 1.3 [-2 to 4.3] kg, p = 0.57), pinch grip (DRA -0.1 [-1.1 to 1] vs PRA -0.3 [-1 to 0.7] kg, p = 0.66), and Quick DASH (DRA 0 [-6.6 to 2.3] vs PRA 0 [-4.6 to 2.9] points, p = 0.58). The composite of hand function was comparable between PRA and DRA. In conclusion, DRA is a safe strategy for cardiac catheterization, with a low complication rate. Compared with PRA, there is no increased risk of hand dysfunction or radial artery occlusion at 1 year.

Distal Versus Proximal Radial Arterial Access for Percutaneous Coronary Angiography and Intervention: Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is a major impediment to reintervention in patients who underwent proximal transradial access (p-TRA) for coronary catheterization. Distal transradial access (d-TRA) at the level of snuffbox distal to the radial artery bifurcation is a novel alternative to p-TRA. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the incidence of RAO between p-TRA and d-TRA, along with access site-related complications. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for RCTs published since 2017 to October 2023 comparing d-TRA and p-TRA for coronary angiography and/or intervention. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model for procedural and clinical outcomes for the 2 approaches. A total of 18 RCTs with 8,205 patients (d-TRA n = 4,096, p-TRA n = 4,109) were included. The risk of RAO (RR 0.31, 0.21 to 0.46, p ≤0.001) and time to hemostasis (minutes) (MD -51.18, -70.62 to -31.73, p <0.001) was significantly lower in the d-TRA group. Crossover rates (RR 2.39, 1.71 to 3.32, p <0.001), access time (minutes) (MD 0.93, 0.50 to 1.37, p <0.001), procedural pain (MD 0.46, 0.13 to 0.79, p = 0.006), and multiple puncture attempts (RR 2.13, 1.10 to 4.11, p = 0.03) were significantly higher in the d-TRA group. The use of d-TRA for coronary angiography and/or intervention is associated with a lower risk of RAO at the forearm and may preserve p-TRA site for reintervention in selective patients by reducing the incidence of RAO.

Distal Versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization: 30-Day Outcomes of the DIPRA Study

Background Proximal radial artery (pRA) access for cardiac catheterization is safe but can jeopardize subsequent use of the artery because of occlusion. Distal radial artery (dRA) access in the anatomical snuffbox preserves the radial artery, but safety and potential detrimental effects on hand function are unknown. Methods and Results In the DIPRA (Distal Versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization and Intervention) study, a single-center trial, 300 patients were randomized 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through dRA or pRA. The primary end point of change in hand function from baseline to 30 days was a composite of the QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb forefinger pinch test. Secondary end points included access feasibility and complications; 254 of 300 patients completed follow-up at 30 days; of these, 128 were randomized to dRA and 126 to pRA with balanced demographic and procedural characteristics. Both groups had similar rates of access site bleeding (dRA 0% versus pRA 1.4%; P=0.25). Six patients with dRA failed access compared with 2 patients with pRA. Radial artery occlusion occurred in 2 pRA versus none in dRA. There were no significant differences in change in hand function, median hand-grip (dRA 0 [-3.2, 3.3] versus pRA 0.7 [-2.3, 3.3] kg; P=0.21), pinch-grip (dRA -0.3 [-1.2, 0.5] versus pRA 0 [-0.9, 0.9] kg; P=0.09), and QuickDASH (dRA 0 [-4.6, 2.3] versus pRA 0 [-4.6, 2.3] points, P=0.96). There was no significant difference in the composite of hand function between pRA and dRA. Conclusions dRA is a safe strategy for cardiac catheterization with a low complication rate. Compared with pRA, there is no increased risk of hand dysfunction at 30 days. Registration URL: https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04318990.

Ambulatory Same-Day Map-and-Treat Angiography for Selective Internal Radiation Therapy Using a Transradial Approach

Historically, selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 (Y-90) requires a two-week interval between workup and treatment (map and treat). The intervening gap between workup and treatment is used to plan for the dose required and obtain delivery of the radioactive Y-90. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the delivery of a robust SIRT service was challenging due to unprecedented demands on all hospital services. Emergent practice changes were required to ensure this service could still be delivered to patients while retaining sufficient inpatient hospital beds and services for acutely unwell patients.

In response to this, the interventional radiology team proposed the retention of a full SIRT service by removing the historical two-week interval between map and treat, delivering both components of the SIRT procedure on the same day. A traditional approach using femoral access would require a prolonged period of immobility and potentially an overnight stay. By adopting a transradial approach without sedo-analgesia, an ambulatory day-case map and treat SIRT with no post-procedure immobilisation was performed.

This case report demonstrates the technical feasibility of same-day ‘map-and-treat’ SIRT, highlighting a paradigm shift from the conventional femoral access method and immobilisation to an ‘ambulatory’ approach with immediate mobilisation post-procedure.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Distal Radial Artery Approach Versus Traditional for Coronary Procedures

Distal radial artery access (DRA) is recommended as the preferred approach over the traditional proximal radial artery access (TRA) for coronary procedures; however, there are limited randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the 2. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of all RCTs from inception to July 26, 2021, that compared DRA versus TRA in patients who underwent coronary procedures. The statistical analysis was performed using a random effect model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 5 RCTs were included with a total of 1,005 patients. A pooled analysis of the data showed that the rate of successful cannulation was similar between the 2 arms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.07, p = 0.16, I² = 94%). The rate of radial artery spasm significantly favored the DRA arm as compared with TRA (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75, p = 0.0007, I² = 0%). Significantly more patients from the DRA arm required alternative arterial access. Moreover, the DRA group had an insignificantly decreased rates of radial artery occlusion (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.20, p = 0.08, I² = 46%) and early discharge after transradial stenting of coronary arteries access-site hematomas (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.149, p = 0.22, I² = 0%). The mean time for hemostasis was significantly shorter in the DRA arm (mean difference -6.64, 95% CI -10.37 to -2.90, p = 0.0005, I² = 88%). In conclusion, DRA should be considered as a viable, effective, and safe arterial access method for patients who underwent coronary procedures.