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

Distal versus proximal radial access in coronary angiography: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Distal radial access (DRA) represents a promising alternative to conventional proximal radial access (PRA) for coronary angiography. Substantial advantages regarding safety and efficacy have been suggested for DRA, but the ideal access route remains controversial.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare safety, efficacy and feasibility of DRA to PRA.

METHODS

National Library of Medicine PubMed, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials and registry studies comparing DRA and PRA that were published between January 1, 2017 and April, 2024. Primary endpoint was the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO). Secondary endpoints were access failure, access time, procedure time, arterial spasm, hematoma, and hemostasis time. Data extraction was performed by two independent investigators. Relative risks were aggregated using a random effects model. We applied meta-analytic regression to assess study characteristic variables as possible moderators of the study effects.

RESULTS

44 studies with a total of 21,081 patients were included. We found a significantly lower rate of RAO after DRA (DRA 1.28%, PRA 4.76%, p < .001) with a 2.92 times lower risk compared to the proximal approach (Log Risk Ratio = -1.07, p < .001). Conversely, the risk for access failure was 2.42 times higher for DRA compared to PRA (Log Risk Ratio = 0.88, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

In this largest meta-analysis to date, we were able to show that rates of RAO are reduced with DRA compared to conventional PRA. This suggests DRA is a safe alternative to PRA.

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.

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.

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.