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

BACKGROUND

Several studies have recently reported regarding feasibility and safety of distal transradial access (d-TRA) in the anatomical snuff-box (ASB); however, literature comparing it with the conventional TRA at the wrist (w-TRA) is sparse. This study compares the technical efficiency and safety of ASB and wrist approaches for TRA for coronary angiography (CAG) and evaluates the radial artery (RA) anatomy at these sites.

METHODS

Two hundred consecutive patients undergoing CAG via w-TRA or d-TRA (100 in each group) were investigated. The primary endpoint was comparison of procedural efficiency of the two methods, defined as CAG completion from the intended access site. The secondary endpoints assessed d-TRA approach in terms of achievement of successful cannulation, arterial puncture, access time (AT), and total procedure time (TPT) in comparison with the conventional method. Safety endpoints included radiation parameters and complications. Furthermore, in 112 normal adults, RA anatomy was assessed at wrist and at ASB.

RESULTS

In d-TRA group, 77% patients achieved primary endpoint compared with 93% in w-TRA group ( = 0.004). The success of arterial puncture was comparable for d-TRA and w-TRA (93% and 99%, respectively; = 0.065), but the cannulation rate was lower for d-TRA. Safety endpoints were similar in both the groups. AT and TPT were longer for d-TRA.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASB approach for CAG lowers the success rate and prolongs AT and TPT. The RA at ASB is smaller, has a curved course, and more anatomical variations than the RA at the wrist.