Distal radial approach versus conventional radial approach: a comparative study of feasibility and safety

Rania Hammami, Fatma Zouari, Mohamed Aymen Ben Abdessalem, Awatef Sassi, Tarek Ellouze, Amine Bahloul, Souad Mallek, Faten Triki, Abdallah Mahdhaoui, Gouider Jeridi, Leila Abid, Selma Charfeddine, Samir Kammoun, Jihen Jdidi, Rania Hammami, Fatma Zouari, Mohamed Aymen Ben Abdessalem, Awatef Sassi, Tarek Ellouze, Amine Bahloul, Souad Mallek, Faten Triki, Abdallah Mahdhaoui, Gouider Jeridi, Leila Abid, Selma Charfeddine, Samir Kammoun, Jihen Jdidi

Abstract

The distal radial approach (DRA) is suggested to have benefits over the conventional radial approach (CRA) in terms of local complications and comfort of both patient and operator. Therefore, we aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of DRA and CRA in a real life population. We conducted a prospective, observational multicentric trial, including all patients undergoing coronary procedures in September 2019. Patients with impalpable proximal or distal radial pulse were excluded. Thus, the choice of the approach is left to the operator discretion. The primary endpoints were cannulation failure and procedure failure. The secondary endpoints were time of puncture, local complications and radial occlusion assessed by Doppler performed one day after the procedure. We enrolled 177 patients divided into two groups: CRA (n = 95) and DRA (n = 82). Percutaneous intervention was achieved in 37% in CRA group and 34% in DRA group (p = 0.7). Cannulation time was not significantly different between the two sets (p = 0.16). Cannulation failure was significantly higher in DRA group (4.8% vs 2%, p < 0.0008). Successful catheterization was achieved in 98% for the CRA group and in 88% for the DRA group (p = 0.008). Radial artery occlusion, detected by ultrasonography, was found in 3 patients in the CRA group (3.1%) and nobody in the DRA group (p = 0.25). The median diameter of the radial artery diameter was higher in the DRA than the CRA group (2.2 mm vs 2.1 mm; p = 0.007). The distal radial approach is feasible and safe for coronary angiography and interventions, but needs a learning curve.

Keywords: Distal radial artery; cannulation failure; local complications; ultrasound doppler.

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

    1. GBD 2017 Causes of Death Collaborators . Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018. 10;392(10159):1736–8.
    1. Campeau L. Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1989. janv;16(1):3–7.
    1. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011. avr 23;377(9775):1409–1420.
    1. Babunashvili A, Dundua D. Recanalization and reuse of early occluded radial artery within 6 days after previous transradial diagnostic procedure. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. 2011;77(4):530–536.
    1. Kiemeneij F Left distal transradial access in the anatomical snuffbox for coronary angiography (ldTRA) and interventions (ldTRI) [Internet]. EuroIntervention. [citéd 2019. October 12]. Disponible sur:
    1. Vefalı V, Sarıçam E. The Comparison of Traditional Radial Access and Novel Distal Radial Access for Cardiac Catheterization. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Apr;21(4):496–500.
    1. Koutouzis M, Kontopodis E, Tassopoulos A, et al. Distal versus traditional radial approach for coronary angiography. Cardiovasc Revascularization Med. 2019. août 1;20(8):678–680.
    1. Hamandi M, Saad M, Hasan R, et al. Distal versus conventional transradial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention: A meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020. Mars 14. DOI:10.1016/j.carrev.2020.03.020.
    1. Amin MR, Singha CK, Banerjee SK, et al. Comparison of distal transradial in the anatomical snuffbox versus conventional transradial access for coronary angiography and intervention-an experience in 100 cases. Univ Heart J. 2017;13(2):40–45.
    1. Gajurel RM, Sahi R, Shrestha H, et al. Initial experience on anatomical snuff box approach for coronary angiogram & percutaneous coronary intervention in a tertiary care center Nepal. World J Cardiovasc Dis. 2018. déc 28;08(12):578.
    1. Nairoukh Z, Jahangir S, Adjepong D, et al. Distal radial artery access: the future of cardiovascular intervention. Cureus. 2020. March 7;12(3):e7201.
    1. Coomes EA, Haghbayan H, Cheema AN. Distal transradial access for cardiac catheterization: a systematic scoping review. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. citéd 2020 janv 30.
    1. Lee J-W, Park SW, Son J-W, et al. Real-world experience of the left distal transradial approach for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective observational study (LeDRA). EuroIntervention. 2018. October 12;14(9):e995–1003.
    1. Coughlan JJ, Zebrauskaite A, Arnous S, et al. Left distal trans-radial access facilitates earlier discharge post-coronary angiography. J Interv Cardiol. 2018. déc;31(6):964–968.
    1. Wretowski D, Krakowian M, Łabyk A, et al. Very distal transradial approach (VITRO) for coronary interventions. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2019;15(1):42–45.
    1. Kühn AL, de Macedo Rodrigues K, Singh J, et al. Distal radial access in the anatomical snuffbox for neurointerventions: a feasibility, safety, and proof-of-concept study. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020. janv 8;12(8):798–801.
    1. Hamon M, Pristipino C, Mario CD, et al. Consensus document on the radial approach in percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: position paper by the European association of percutaneous cardiovascular interventions and working groups on acute cardiac care** and thrombosis of the European society of cardiology [Internet]. EuroIntervention. [citéd 2019. November 5]. Disponible sur:
    1. Uhlemann M, Möbius-Winkler S, Mende M, et al. The leipzig prospective vascular ultrasound registry in radial artery catheterization: impact of sheath size on vascular complications. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012. January 1;5(1):36–43.
    1. Nagai S, Abe S, Sato T, et al. Ultrasonic assessment of vascular complications in coronary angiography and angioplasty after transradial approach. Am J Cardiol. 1999. janv 15;83(2):180–186.
    1. Kaledin A, Kochanov IN, Podmetin PS, Seletsky SS, Ardeev VN. Distal radial artery in endovascular interventions; 2017.
    1. Mizuguchi Y, Izumikawa T, Hashimoto S, et al. Efficacy and safety of the distal transradial approach in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a Japanese multicenter experience. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2019;24.
    1. Amin MR, Banerjee SK, Biswas E, et al. Feasibility and safety of distal transradial access in the anatomical snuffbox for coronary angiography and intervention. Mymensingh Med J. 2019. juill;28(3):647–654.
    1. Okuyan H, Hzal F, Taçoy G, et al. Angiographic evaluation of the radial artery diameter in patients who underwent coronary angiography or coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013. juill;25(7):353–357.
    1. Naito T, Sawaoka T, Sasaki K, et al. Evaluation of the diameter of the distal radial artery at the anatomical snuff box using ultrasound in Japanese patients. Cardiovasc Interventions Ther [Internet]. 2019. janv 7. [citéd août 21]; Disponible sur;34:312–316.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe