Distal or Traditional Transradial Access Site for Coronary Procedures A Single-Center, Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the distal transradial approach (dTRA) versus the conventional transradial approach (TRA) for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions. BACKGROUND The recommended approach for coronary procedures is TRA. However, it is associated with radial artery occlusion (RAO). The dTRA could potentially decrease the incidence of RAO. METHODS One thousand forty-two consecutive patients were randomized (1:1) to right dTRA or TRA. The primary endpoint was the rate of RAO, which was evaluated by Doppler ultrasound at 60 days after randomization. RESULTS Five hundred eighteen and 524 patients were randomized to dTRA and TRA, respectively. Follow-up Doppler evaluation of the radial artery was accomplished in 404 (78.0%) patients in the dTRA group and 392 (74.8%) in the TRA group. The rate of RAO was significantly reduced in the dTRA group compared with TRA group (3.7% vs 7.9%, respectively; P = 0.014). The rate of successful sheath insertion was lower in the dTRA group compared with the TRA group (78.7% vs 94.8%, respectively; P < 0.001). More punctures (median = 2 [IQR: 1-3] vs median = 1 [IQR: 1-2]; P < 0.001) and a longer time (120 vs 75 seconds; P < 0.001) were required for sheath insertion in the dTRA group compared with the TRA group. The hemostasis time was shorter in the dTRA group compared with the TRA group (60 vs 120 minutes; P < 0.001). The dose area product was higher in the dTRA group (median = 32,729 in the dTRA vs 28,909 cGy/cm2 in the TRA group; P = 0.02). No significant differences were observed in the secondary safety endpoints (bleeding [Bleeding Academic Research Consortium $2] and severe radial artery spasm). CONCLUSIONS According to our study, dTRA was associated with a lower rate of forearm RAO, a shorter time of hemostasis, a higher crossover rate and dose area product, and a longer procedural time compared with TRA. (C) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.