Comparison of radial artery occlusion between traditional radial access and distal radial access for coronary angiography and intervention: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND

The radial approach is now recommended as the default strategy in diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the most common complication that limits subsequent angiographic procedures through this access. Recently, distal radial access (DRA) has been recommended as an alternative access site. Despite lower RAO rates in DRA in some recent clinical trials, concerns remain regarding possible complications and limitations due to the small size of the distal radial artery.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to compare traditional radial access (TRA) and DRA concerning RAO in percutaneous coronary procedures.

METHODS

In the present prospective cohort study, percutaneous coronary procedures were performed via DRA or TRA in 2 study groups. All consecutive participants underwent DRA from September 2021 to March 2022 and TRA from April 2022 to June 2022. Ultrasonography was performed preprocedurally in the DRA group, and patients with small distal artery diameters (<2 mm) were excluded. The same 6-Fr sheaths and standard air-filled compression devices were used in both groups. The primary endpoint was RAO in ultrasound sonography on the first postprocedural day, and the secondary endpoints were the success rate, access time, angiography time, radial artery spasms, and vascular access complications.

RESULTS

A total of 298 patients were assigned to the DRA group and 278 to the TRA group. The RAO rate was significantly higher in the TRA group than in the DRA group (10.1 % vs 0.9 %;  = 0.0001; OR, 0.08, 95 % CI, 0.01-0.27). The success rate was significantly higher in the TRA group (96 % vs 90.2 %;  = 0.009). Access crossovers were done on 12 patients (4.0 %) in the TRA group and 24 patients (9.8 %) in the DRA group ( < 0.001). The mean access time was significantly lower in the TRA group than in the DRA group (1.9 min vs 2.9 min;  < 0.001). The mean angiography time did not significantly differ between the groups (10.2 min in the TRA group vs 9.9 min in the DRA group). The rate of radial artery spasms was not significantly different between the 2 groups (13.8 % in the TRA group vs 14.5 % in the DRA group). The rates of access site hematoma (12.4 % vs 2.3 %;  < 0.001) and bleeding (10.7 % vs 4.1;  = 0.005) were significantly higher in the TRA group.

CONCLUSIONS

DRA was safe and feasible with lower rates of RAO and access site complications than TRA. Thus, it could be used as an alternative approach in percutaneous coronary procedures. However, the trade-off for these advantages of DRA is an increase in cross-over rate, and a decrease in puncture success rate.