The Comparison of Traditional Radial Access and Novel Distal Radial Access for Cardiac Catheterization.

OBJECTIVES

The traditional radial access (TRA) has been used almost routinely in coronary interventions in our clinic. Recently, we have started to use distal radial artery point as distal radial access (DRA) more frequently. The aim of this study is to compare these techniques (DRA and TRA) in terms of their safety, feasibility, and effectiveness.

BACKGROUND

Recently, the distal transradial access novel techniques have started to be used in coronary interventions, such as the anatomical snuffbox (AS) and DRA.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized study was carried out in a single center. The patients were selected from the catheterization laboratory of Medicana Ankara Hospital, between October 2018 and December 2018. Consecutive patients with TRA (103 patients) and DRA (102 patients) were randomized for coronary intervention.

RESULTS

Successful catheterization was achieved in 99 of 103 (96.1%) patients in the TRA group and in 97 patients of 102 (95.1%) patients in the DRA group. The radial artery spasm was observed in 4 cases in TRA group, whereas no radial artery spasm was seen in DRA group (p < 0.0001). The transradial access time in the DRA group (46.85 ± 2.41 s) lasted longer than the TRA (36.66 ± 5.16 s, p = 0.008).In DRA, hemostasis seems quicker than TRA.

CONCLUSIONS

DRA is feasible and safe for coronary angiography and interventions like TRA. It can be used as an alternative technique.