Distal Transradial Access in Anatomical Snuffbox for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: An Updated Meta-Analysis

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.

Trans-Distal Radial Artery Carotid Revascularization with Forearm Flow Reversal: An Alternative Option of CAS in the TCAR Era

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an alternative to carotid artery stenting (CAS). TCAR demonstrated its superiority by avoiding femoral artery puncture and establishing proximal protection without crossing the stenotic lesion. In the TCAR era, we focused on the possibility of a trans-distal radial approach (DRA). A balloon-guide catheter was navigated via DRA to establish proximal protection before lesion crossing. The forearm subcutaneous vein was used as the flow-reversal circuit.

METHODS

Six internal carotid artery stenosis patients underwent CAS using "the forearm flow reversal technique." Every procedure was performed under continuous flow reversal from the common carotid artery to the forearm cephalic vein.

RESULTS

Successful revascularization was achieved without ischemic or access-site complications. The distal radial artery was patent at discharge in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Trans-distal radial CAS with forearm flow reversal is a feasible and less invasive technical option.

The distal radial artery: Versatile vascular access for transcatheter interventions

Conventional transradial access has been established as the gold standard for invasive coronary angiography and percutaneous interventions by the current European and American guidelines. The distal or snuffbox radial artery access represents an alternative transradial access site that allows radial sheath insertion with the patient's hand pronated. Firstly described 40 years ago, it exploded in popularity only recently. Promising additional benefits, the distal radial access is increasingly being adopted in various types of percutaneous interventions, being preferred by many interventional cardiologists and radiologists for its reduced vascular complications and time to hemostasis, and improvement of patient and operator comfort. Other centers consider it a fad, waiting for solid clear evidence and benefits. The evidence is dynamic and discrepant, depending on the center, the operator, and how it was collected (randomized controlled vs observational studies). Another essential aspect raised by "skeptics" was whether distal radial access, by its smaller diameter and more angled course, can support all types of interventions. The aim of this review is to gather all the scenarios where distal radial access has been utilized and to conclude whether this vascular access is feasible across all transcatheter interventions.

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.

Incidence of Distal Radial Artery Occlusion and its Influencing Factors After Cardiovascular Intervention Via the Distal Transradial Access

INTRODUCTION

One of the important advantages of the distal transradial access (dTRA) is the significant reduction in the incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO). There are few reports on the influencing factors for distal radial artery occlusion (dRAO) after cardiovascular interventions via the dTRA.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included the clinical data of patients who underwent a cardiovascular intervention via the dTRA. The dRAO was evaluated by ultrasound within 24 hours after the procedure. Multivariate logistic analysis was used to explore the influencing factors for dRAO.

RESULTS

The incidence of dRAO was 3.5% (28/805) at 24 hours follow-up after the procedure. In the comparison between the 2 groups, the preoperative distal radial artery (DRA) internal diameter in the dRAO group was significantly smaller than that in the non-dRAO group (p=0.001). The prevalence of DRA inner diameter/sheath outer diameter <1 was significantly higher in the dRAO group than in the non-dRAO group (p=0.013). The number of puncture attempts was significantly greater in the dRAO group than in the non-dRAO group (p=0.007). Multivariate logistic analysis showed that DRA inner diameter/sheath outer diameter <1 was an independent risk factor for dRAO (OR=4.827, 95% CI=1.087-21.441, p=0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of dRAO 24 hours after cardiovascular intervention via the dTRA was 3.5%, and a DRA inner diameter/sheath outer diameter <1 was an independent risk factor for dRAO. Preoperative ultrasound assessment of vessel inner diameter and selection of a sheath with a smaller outer diameter may reduce the risk of dRAO.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The incidence of distal radial artery occlusion after cardiovascular intervention was 3.5%. The distal radial artery inner diameter/sheath outer diameter <1 was an independent risk factor for distal radial artery occlusion. Preoperative ultrasound assessment of vessel inner diameter and selection of a sheath with a smaller outer diameter may reduce the risk of distal radial artery occlusion. The number of puncture attempts and compression time were not related to distal radial artery occlusion.

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.

Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Coronary Catheterization through Distal Transradial Access: A Single-Center Data

Background and Aims

The distal transradial access (dTRA) is a new puncture site for coronary catheterization. We sought to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and complication rates of using the dTRA for cardiac catheterization in Chinese patients.

Methods

A total of 263 consecutive patients who underwent catheterization through the dTRA were enrolled. The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of conversion to another access site due to the impossibility of successful artery puncture or intubation. Secondary safety endpoints were the rates of bleeding-related complications and nerve disorders.

Results

Among 263 patients, the puncture success rate was 96.2% (253/263). Eleven patients were successfully punctured, but the guide wire was difficult to advance. One patient had intubation failure, and the success rate of intubation was 91.6% (241/263). Two hundred thirty-three patients underwent puncture via the right dTRA, 5 patients underwent puncture via the left dTRA, and 3 patients underwent puncture via the bilateral dTRA. A total of 158 (65.6%) patients underwent coronary angiography, and 83 (34.4%) patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. After the procedure, only 2 (0.8%) patients had mild bleeding at the puncture site, 2 (0.8%) had a forearm hematoma, and no patient had a nerve disorder.

Conclusions

DTRA has a low incidence of complications, making it a safe and effective technique for cardiac catheterization.

Efficacy and Safety of Distal Radial Access for Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization (TACE) of the Liver

BACKGROUND

The distal radial artery has emerged as an alternative vascular-access site to conventional transfemoral and transradial approaches. The main advantage over the conventional transradial route is the reduced risk of radial artery occlusion, especially in those patients who, for various clinical reasons, have to undergo repeated endovascular procedures. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of distal radial access for transcatheter arterial chemoembolization of the liver.

METHODS

This investigation is a single-center retrospective analysis of 42 consecutive patients who had undergone, from January 2018 to December 2022, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization of the liver with distal radial access for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Outcome data were compared with a retrospectively constituted control group of 40 patients undergoing drug-eluting beads-transcatheter arterial chemoembolization with femoral access.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all cases, with a 2.4% conversion rate for distal radial access. A superselective chemoembolization was performed in 35 (83.3%) cases of distal radial access. No episode of radial artery spasm or radial artery occlusion occurred. No significant differences in efficacy and safety were observed between the distal radial access group and the femoral access group.

CONCLUSIONS

Distal radial access is effective, safe, and comparable to femoral access in patients undergoing transcatheter arterial chemoembolization of the liver.

Distal versus conventional radial artery access for coronary catheterization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The distal radial artery (DRA) access is an alternative to the conventional radial artery (CRA) access for coronary angiography and interventions and appears to be associated with reduced incidence of certain outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to evaluate differences between DRA versus CRA access for coronary angiography and/or interventions. Following preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis-protocols guidelines, two reviewers independently selected studies published in the electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL) from inception to October 10, 2022, followed by data extraction, meta-analysis, and quality assessment.

RESULTS

The final review included 28 studies with (total: 9151 patients [DRA: 4474; CRA: 4677]). Compared with CRA, DRA access was found to be associated with a shorter time to achieve hemostasis (mean difference, MD: -32.49 [95% confidence interval, CI: -65.53, -2.46], p < 0.00001), and reduced incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) (risk ratio, RR: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.25, 0.57], p < 0.00001), any bleeding (RR: 0.44 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.86], p = 0.02), and pseudoaneurysm (RR: 0.41 [95% CI: 0.18, 0.99], p = 0.05). However, DRA access has increased access time (MD: 0.31 [95% CI: -0.09, 0.71], p < 0.00001) and crossover rates (RR: 2.75 [95% CI: 1.70, 4.44], p < 0.00001). There were no statistically significant differences in other technical aspects and complications.

CONCLUSION

DRA access is a safe and feasible approach for coronary angiography and interventions. Compared to CRA, DRA provides a shorter hemostasis time, lower incidence of RAO, any bleeding, and pseudoaneurysm, and is associated with increased access time and crossover rates.

Application of ultrasound in cardiovascular intervention via the distal radial artery approach: New wine in old bottles?

The distal radial artery (DRA) approach has emerged as a new approach in cardiovascular intervention. In recent years, ultrasound has been widely used in cardiovascular intervention via the DRA approach. This article systematically discusses the progress of ultrasound in the preoperative vascular assessment, intraoperative guided puncture and postoperative observation of complications via the DRA approach.

Feasibility and Safety of Transradial Aneurysm Embolization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Use of the transradial access (TRA) approach for neuroendovascular procedures has been increasing in recent years. Our aim is to assess the feasibility, success rate, and complications associated with TRA for intracranial aneurysm embolization.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were systematically searched for studies using TRA for intracranial aneurysm embolization. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled rates of procedural success and complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies comprising 1283 (85.9%) TRA and 122 (8.2%) distal TRA aneurysm embolization procedures were included. The pooled success rate of the 18 studies in the meta-analysis was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.1%-95.8%). The pooled thromboembolic complication rate was 0.5% (95% CI, 0.1%-0.9%), the hemorrhagic complication rate was 0.5% (95% CI, 0.1%-0.9%), and the access site complication rate was 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.3%). One study (4.3%) used exclusively a 7-French guide catheter, and most used a 6-French guide catheter (22 of 23 studies, 95.7%), which was further incorporated as part of a triaxial configuration through a sheathless 8-French system in 4 studies (17.4%), 7-French guide catheter in 2 studies (8.7%), and 8-French sheath in 1 study (4.3%). The embolization techniques used were flow diverter placement in 451 cases (39.1%), coiling in 376 (32.6%), stent-assisted coiling in 127 (11.0%), balloon-assisted coiling in 104 (9.0%), Woven EndoBridge system in 50 (4.3%), and flow diverter placement plus coiling in 42 (3.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Treating intracranial aneurysms using various embolization techniques through TRA is feasible and associated with low access site and intraoperative complications.

Efficacy and Safety of Coronary Intervention via Distal Transradial Access (dTRA) in Patients with Low Body Mass Index

The study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of coronary intervention via distal transradial access (dTRA) in patients with low body mass index (BMI). A total of 67 patients with low BMI who underwent coronary intervention, comprising 29 patients via dTRA and 38 patients via conventional transradial access (cTRA), were retrospectively included. There was no significant difference in the puncture success rate between the two groups (dTRA 96.6%, cTRA 97.4%, P=0.846). Compared with the cTRA group, the success rate of one-needle puncture in the dTRA group was lower (51.7% vs. 81.6%, P=0.020). The compression haemostasis time in the dTRA group was shorter than that in the cTRA group (P  <  0.001). However, the incidence of radial artery occlusion was lower in the dTRA group than in the cTRA group (4.0% vs. 33.3%, P=0.007). In conclusion, coronary intervention via dTRA was safe and effective in patients with low BMI.

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?

Distal transradial access for coronary procedures: a prospective cohort of 3,683 all-comers patients from the DISTRACTION registry

BACKGROUND

Distal transradial access (dTRA) as an improvement of the traditional transradial approach has several potential advantages including operator and patient comfort, faster hemostasis, and lower risk of proximal radial artery occlusion (RAO). We aim to describe our real-world experience with dTRA as default approach for routine coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in a broad and prospective cohort of all-comers patients.

METHODS

In the DISTRACTION registry, a total of 3,683 consecutive all-comers patients who underwent coronary procedures via dTRA were included.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 63.3±13.5-year-old, 66.1% were male, 39.7% had diabetes, and 50.2% presented with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Overall, 20% of patients had non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 22.9% had ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and 2.6% presented in cardiogenic shock. There were 2.5% access site crossovers, 16% of those were performed via contralateral dTRA; thus, in only 77 (2.1%) patients dTRA sheath insertion could not be obtained. Right dTRA (rdTRA) was the most frequent access (80.2%), followed by redo ipsilateral dTRA (10.5%), left dTRA (ldTRA) (8.6%) and simultaneous bilateral dTRA (0.7%). PCI was performed in 60.4% of all cases, and left anterior descending was the most treated vessel (29%). No access site-related hematoma type ≥2, according to EASY classification was recorded. No hand/thumb dysfunction after any procedure was documented. One patient developed a pseudoaneurysm, and one had guidewire-induced forearm radial artery perforation. There were neither major complications nor major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events directly related to dTRA.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, prospective, all-commers patients registry the adoption of dTRA as standard for routine coronary interventions appears to be safe and feasible.