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

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.

Comparison of Long-Term Prognoses of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention via Distal Transradial and Conventional Transradial Access for Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Distal transradial access (dTRA) has recently emerged as a new vascular access alternative for coronary angiography (CAG) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, published data on long-term mortality and major adverse cardiac events after PCI via dTRA are inconclusive. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term prognoses of PCI via dTRA and conventional transradial access (cTRA) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after 1-3 years of follow-up.

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with ACS and underwent PCI between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were retrospectively enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups at a 1:1 ratio, subjected to propensity score matching (PSM) and then followed for 1-3 years after PCI. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the relationship between the two access sites and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the 550 patients in the dTRA and cTRA groups, 11 (4.0%) and 19 (6.9%) died during the observation period, respectively. dTRA and cTRA had similar risks of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) =0.688; 95% CI=0.323-1.463; P=0.331] and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, HR=0.806, 95% CI= 0.515-1.263; P=0.347) after PCI. The risk of cardiovascular mortality (HR=0.330, 95% CI= 0.107-1.105; P=0.053), TLR-MACEs (HR= 0.587, 95% CI=0.339-1.109; P=0.058), and unplanned revascularization (HR= 0.860, 95% CI=0.483-1.529; P=0.606) were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PCI via dTRA has the same long-term prognoses as PCI via cTRA in ACS patients, and the compression time and bleeding rate are lower than those in patients undergoing PCI via cTRA.

Distal Radial Access for Coronary Procedures in a Large Prospective Multicenter Registry: The KODRA Trial

BACKGROUND

Distal radial access (DRA) as an alternative access route lacks evidence, despite its recent reputation.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of DRA on the basis of daily practice.

METHODS

The KODRA (Korean Prospective Registry for Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach) trial was a prospective multicenter registry conducted at 14 hospitals between September 2019 and September 2021. The primary endpoints were the success rates of coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The secondary endpoints included successful distal radial artery puncture, access-site crossover, access site-related complications, bleeding events, and predictors of puncture failure.

RESULTS

A total of 4,977 among 5,712 screened patients were recruited after the exclusion of 735 patients. The primary endpoints, the success rates of CAG and PCI via DRA, were 100% and 98.8%, respectively, among successful punctures of the distal radial artery (94.4%). Access-site crossover occurred in 333 patients (6.7%). The rates of distal radial artery occlusion and radial artery occlusion by palpation were 0.8% (36 of 4,340) and 0.8% (33 of 4,340) at 1-month follow-up. DRA-related bleeding events were observed in 3.3% of patients, without serious hematoma. Multilevel logistic regression analysis identified weak pulse (OR: 9.994; 95% CI: 7.252-13.774) and DRA experience <100 cases (OR: 2.187; 95% CI: 1.383-3.456) as predictors of puncture failure.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large-scale prospective multicenter registry, DRA demonstrated high success rates of CAG and PCI, with a high rate of puncture success but low rates of distal radial artery occlusion, radial artery occlusion, bleeding events, and procedure-related complications. Weak pulse and DRA experience <100 cases were predictors of puncture failure. (Korean Prospective Registry for Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach [KODRA]; NCT04080700).

Comparison of long-term radial artery occlusion via distal vs. conventional transradial access (CONDITION): a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The distal transradial access (dTRA) has become an attractive and alternative access to the conventional transradial access (TRA) for cardiovascular interventional diagnosis and/or treatment. There was a lack of randomized clinical trials to evaluate the effect of the dTRA on the long-term radial artery occlusion (RAO).

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized controlled study. The primary endpoint was the incidence of long-term RAO at 3 months after discharge. The secondary endpoints included the successful puncture rate, puncture time, and other access-related complications.

RESULTS

The incidence of long-term RAO was 0.8% (3/361) for dTRA and 3.3% (12/365) for TRA (risk ratio = 0.25, 95% confidence interval = 0.07-0.88, P = 0.02). The incidence of RAO at 24 h was significantly lower in the dTRA group than in the TRA group (2.5% vs. 6.7%, P < 0.01). The puncture success rate (96.0% vs. 98.5%, P = 0.03) and single puncture attempt (70.9% vs. 83.9%, P < 0.01) were significantly lower in the dTRA group than in the TRA group. However, the number of puncture attempts and puncture time were higher in the dTRA group. The dTRA group had a lower incidence of bleeding than the TRA group (1.5% vs. 6.0%, P < 0.01). There was no difference in the success rate of the procedure, total fluoroscopy time, or incidence of other access-related complications between the two groups. In the per-protocol analysis, the incidence of mEASY type ≥ II haematoma was significantly lower in the dTRA group, which was consistent with that in the as-treated analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The dTRA significantly reduced the incidence of long-term RAO, bleeding or haematoma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifer: NCT05253820.