Comparison of the feasibility and safety between distal transradial access and conventional transradial access in patients with acute chest pain: a single-center cohort study using propensity score matching

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.

Ultrasound-guided modified dynamic needle tip positioning technique for distal radial artery catheterization: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The distal radial artery presents a particular challenge for puncture and catheterization due to its diminutive size, tortuous path, and tendency to spasm, increasing the risk of procedural failure and injury. Ultrasound guidance improves success rates and reduces risk in radial artery catheterization. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of a refined dynamic needle tip positioning technique for distal radial artery access.

METHODS

One hundred twelve patients were randomized to either the modified dynamic needle tip positioning technique (MDNTP) or palpation guidance groups (palpation group), each with 56 participants. The primary outcomes were the success rate of the initial puncture and overall puncture success rate, while secondary outcomes included procedural time and complications such as puncture site hematoma and radial artery occlusion within 24 h.

RESULTS

The MDNTP group exhibited superior initial puncture success (71.43% vs 46.43%, p < 0.05) and fewer puncture attempts (median 1 (1, 2) vs 2 (1, 4), p < 0.05), resulting in a higher overall puncture success rate (98.21% vs 87.50%, p = 0.028). Notably, sheath insertion times were significantly shorter (17 (12, 21) s vs 57 (32, 100) s, p = 0.001) and the Sheath insertion success rate was higher (96.43% vs 82.14%, p = 0.015) in the MDNTP group. Furthermore, the incidence of puncture site hematomas was reduced (5.36% vs 19.64%, p = 0.022), although puncture time was longer (60 (28, 116) s vs 40 (15, 79) s, p = 0.033). Despite these differences, total procedural time and the incidence of radial artery occlusion at 24 h postoperatively were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The MDNTP technique boosts the success of distal radial artery puncture and catheterization, reducing the risk of complications associated with the procedure.

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.

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.