An observational comparison of distal radial and traditional radial approaches for coronary angiography

Efficacy and safety of distal transradial access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis

Introduction

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dTRA for coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in comparison to cTRA.

Materials and methods

Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched from their inception to 13 April 2024 for studies comparing dTRA and cTRA in coronary diagnostic or interventional catheterization. The meta-analysis evaluated radial artery occlusion (RAO), procedure success, the success rate of catheter puncture, the success rate of a single attempt, hematoma occurrence, radial artery spasms, puncture site bleeding, puncture time, procedural time, the dosage of contrast medium, and hemostasis time.

Results

A total of 31 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with cTRA, dTRA significantly reduced the incidence of RAO [odds ratio (OR) = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.34-0.50, P < 0.05], hematoma (OR = 0.67, 95% CI:0.56-0.80, P < 0.05), and shorter hemostasis time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.43, 95% CI:-0.65 to -0.20, P < 0.05] but had a significantly lower procedure success rate (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.56, P < 0.05), a lower catheter puncture success rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.27-0.71, P < 0.05), and a longer puncture time (WMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.44-0.75, P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between dTRA and cTRA in terms of the success rate of a single attempt, radial artery spasms, puncture site bleeding, procedural time, and dosage of contrast medium.

Conclusions

Our results revealed that dTRA is a workable and safe method for cardiovascular interventional diagnostics and treatment. It significantly reduces the incidence of RAO and hematoma, as well as shortens hemostasis time following surgery.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024596238, PROSPERO (CRD42024596238).

Risk factors for puncture-related complications after cerebrovascular angiography and neuroendovascular intervention with distal transradial approach

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To determine the risk factors for puncture-related complications after the distal transradial approach (dTRA) for cerebrovascular angiography and neuroendovascular intervention and to explore the incidence and potential mechanisms of procedural failure and puncture-related complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From February to November 2023, 62 patients underwent dTRA in our department. Demographic, clinical, and procedural data were collected retrospectively. Postoperative puncture-related complications were defined as a syndrome of major hematoma, minor hematoma, arterial spasm/occlusion, arteriovenous fistula, pseudoaneurysm, and neuropathy. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to identify significant factors contributing to puncture-related complications.

RESULTS

Forty-five diagnostic cerebral angiograms and 17 neurointerventions were performed or attempted with dTRA in 62 patients. Procedural success was achieved via dTRA in 47 (75.8%) patients, whereas 15 (24.2%) required conversion to other approaches. Reasons for failure included puncture failure (n = 8), inability to cannulate due to arterial spasm (n = 6), and inadequate catheter support of the left vertebral artery (n = 1). 17.0% (8/47) of patients had postoperative puncture-related complications. Minor hematoma occurred in 8.5% (4/47) of patients, arterial spasm/occlusion in 6.3% (3/47), and neuropathy in 2.1% (1/47). No major complications were observed. On stepwise multivariable regression analysis, BMI (OR = 0.70, 95%CI 0.513 to 0.958; p = 0.026) was an independent risk factor for puncture-related complications, with a cut-off of 24.8 kg/m2 (sensitivity 66.7% and specificity 87.5%).

CONCLUSION

Our cohort is the first study of risk factors for puncture-related complications after neurointerventional interventions with dTRA. This study has shown that a low BMI (< 24.8 kg/m2) is independently associated with the development of puncture-related complications.

Évaluation de la voie radiale distale dans les interventions coronaires percutanées. Essai contrôlé, randomisé de non infériorité

INTRODUCTION

The conventional radial approach (CRA), the gold standard approach for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), is associated with the risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO). The distal radial approach (DRA) is an effective alternative with fewer complications.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy in terms of puncture success and safety by RAO rate of the DRA in elective PCI in Tunisian patients.

METHODS

It was a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial including patients hospitalized for elective PCI. The protocol was previously published (Tunis Med 2022; 100(3): 192-202). The primary endpoints were puncture success and RAO rate at 30 days.

RESULTS

Overall, 250 patients were included and the groups were comparable. The preprocedural examination of the radial pulse and the Barbeau test were similar. The majority of PCIs were coronary angiography (82%). In ITT, respectively in CRA versus DRA, puncture success rates were similar (97.6% versus 96.8%; p≤0.500). RAO rates were similar (2.4% versus 3.2%; p≤0.500). Crossovers were similar. PCI through DRA lasted longer but was not more irradiating, however it required more contrast. Overall bleeding and vascular complications were similar.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of DRA compared to CRA for elective PCIs in a Tunisian population regarding puncture success and RAO rate at 30 days. Multicenter trials including urgent PCI with systematic ultrasound screening for RAO are needed.

Anatomical snuff box approach for percutaneous coronary interventions - Current status

Anatomical snuff box or distal radial artery approach for various percutaneous coronary angiograms and interventions has gained increased interest in recent years. The main advantage is the ergonomic comfort to the patient as it allows the patient's arm to be in more natural position. The safety and feasibility of this novel approach has been studied in past few years but still the data is limited and the distal radial artery approach has not been included in the guidelines. The present review focuses on the latest evidence, technique, advantages and disadvantages of this distal radial artery access.

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

Objective

The previous meta-analysis has assessed that distal transradial access (dTRA) in anatomical snuffbox is safe and effective for coronary angiography and intervention and can reduce radial artery occlusion. However, since the publication of the previous meta-analysis, several observational studies have been added, so we performed an updated meta-analysis to include more eligible studies to compare distal transradial access in anatomical snuffbox with conventional transradial access (cTRA).

Method

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies from the literature published until 5 January 2021 to evaluate catheterization/puncture failure, hematoma, radial artery spasm, radial artery occlusion (RAO), access time, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose area product, total procedure time, and hemostatic device removal time. The pooled odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively.

Results

A total of 9,054 patients from 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis, and we found no significant difference in catheterization/puncture failure (OR = 1.94, 95CI [0.97, 3.86], P=0.06), hematoma (OR = 0.97, 95CI [0.55, 1.73], P=0.926), radial artery spasm (OR = 0.76, 95CI [0.43, 1.36], P=0.354), total procedure time (SMD = 0.23, 95CI [-0.21, 0.68], P=0.308), or radiation dose area product (WMD = 216.88 Gy/cm², 95CI [-126.24, 560.00], P=0.215), but dTRA had a lower incidence of RAO (OR = 0.39, 95CI [0.23, 0.66], P < 0.001), shorter hemostatic device removal time (WMD = -66.62 min, 95CI [-76.68, -56.56], P < 0.001), longer access time (SMD = 0.32, 95CI [0.08, 0.56], P=0.008), and longer fluoroscopy time (SMD = 0.16, 95CI [-0.00, 0.33], P=0.05) than cTRA.

Conclusion

Compared with the cTRA, the dTRA has a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion and shorter hemostatic device removal time, which is worthy of further evaluation in clinical practice.