A comparison of the clinical effects and safety between the distal radial artery and the classic radial artery approaches in percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND

Compared with a classic wrist puncture for radial artery catheterization, a distal radial artery puncture has the advantage of reducing the incidence of radial artery occlusion in anatomic and physiological procedures. This study aimed to explore the difference in clinical effects between the distal radial artery and classic radial artery approaches in percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

A total of 620 patients who underwent coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention in our hospital from December 2017 to December 2018 were enrolled in this study. These patients were divided into two groups based on the puncture site: a distal radial artery group and a classic radial artery group. There were 312 patients in the radial artery group and 308 patients in the classic radial artery group. The puncture time, puncture success rate, surgery time, implanted stents, puncture site hemorrhage, hematoma, aneurysm, and iliac artery occlusion rate were observed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in puncture time, puncture success rate, surgery time, implanted stent, puncture site hemorrhage, hematoma and aneurysm (P>0.05), while the radial artery occlusion rate was lower in the distal radial artery group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that the distal radial artery approach had a lower rate of brachial artery occlusion, indicating that it could be used as an alternative to the classic radial artery approach.