Comparison of 4-French versus 5-French sheaths for diagnostic coronary angiography via the snuffbox approach

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

BACKGROUND

Distal transradial access (dTRA) has been suggested to have great advantages over cTRA. However, there is a lack of preliminary data on dTRA in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To explore the feasibility and safety of distal transradial access in patients with acute chest pain.

METHODS

A total of 1269 patients complaining of acute chest pain in our emergency department from January 2020 to February 2022 were retrospectively included. The patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into the conventional transradial access (cTRA) group (n = 238) and the dTRA group (n = 158). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the baseline differences.

RESULTS

The cannulation success rate in the dTRA group was significantly lower than that in the cTRA group (87.41% vs. 94.81%, p < 0.05). No significant differences in the puncture time and total procedure time were noted between the two groups (p > 0.05). Compared with the cTRA group, the hemostasis duration was significantly shorter [4(4, 4) h vs. 10(8, 10) h, p < 0.001) and the incidence of minor bleeding (BARC Type I and II) was significantly lower in the dTRA group than that in the cTRA group (0.85% vs. 5.48%, p = 0.045). Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion was observed in six patients (5.83%) in the cTRA group and one patient (1.14%) in the dTRA group (p = 0.126). The subgroup analysis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) showed no significant differences in the puncture time, D-to-B time or total procedure time between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The dTRA for emergency CAG or PCI has an acceptable success rate and puncture time, a shorter hemostasis time, and a downward trend in RAO rate compared to the cTRA. The dTRA did not increase the D-to-B time in emergency coronary interventions in STEMI patients. On the contrary, a low incidence of RAO by the dTRA created an opportunity for future coronary interventions in non-culprit vessels in the same access.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registry number: ChiCTR2200061104, date of registration: June 15, 2022).

The learning curve of the distal radial access for coronary intervention

Recently, coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via the distal radial access (DRA), are gaining attention owing to fewer complications. Despite the advantages of the DRA, there is difficulty to initiate this new vascular approach. The data from 1000 patients who underwent CAG and PCI via the DRA by a single experienced radial operator were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was the success rate of the DRA per 100 cases. Moreover, the predictors of the failed DRA were analyzed. Overall, 952 (95.2%) of the total 1,000 patients underwent a successful DRA. After experiencing 200 cases, the DRA success rate was well maintained at > 94%, and there was no difference in success rate per 100 cases (P_trend = 0.216). The predictors of failure were female sex [odds ratio (OR) 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–3.39, P = 0.049] and systolic blood pressure (SBP) of < 120 mmHg (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.04–3.36, P = 0.036). For achieving a stable DRA with the success rate of > 94%, 200 procedures would be needed. Moreover, this new approach could fail in women and patients with low SBP.

Trial registration: https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/index/index.do (Unique identifier: KCT0005349).