Key result
Distal radial access matches forearm radial access for catheterization success with ~95% cannulation rates.
Why the study?
Does the distal radial artery approach provide non-inferior catheterization success compared to the forearm radial artery approach in ICCU patients needing invasive blood pressure monitoring?
Population
250 patients admitted in the intensive cardiac care unit (ICCU) needing invasive blood pressure monitoring
Comparison
Distal radial artery approach for invasive blood… vs Conventional forearm radial artery (fRA) approach
Design
RCT, Randomly allocated to dRA or fRA access site (1:1 ratio)
Authors
Loading...
The distal radial artery approach is non-inferior to the conventional forearm radial artery approach for invasive blood pressure monitoring in the ICCU, and is associated with significantly fewer entry-site complications.
RCT (n=250)
1:1
No
Does the distal radial artery approach provide non-inferior catheterization success compared to the forearm radial artery approach in ICCU patients needing invasive blood pressure monitoring?
Mean Difference: -1.6 (95% CI -6.5–3.3)
Absolute Event Rate: 95.2% vs 96.8%
p-value: p=<0.001 for non-inferiority
The distal radial artery approach is non-inferior to the conventional forearm radial artery approach for invasive blood pressure monitoring in the ICCU, and is associated with significantly fewer entry-site complications.
Cumitini et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Intensive cardiac care unit patients needing invasive blood pressure monitoring (n=250). Distal radial artery (dRA) access vs. Forearm radial artery (fRA) access was evaluated on Final catheterization success rate (MD -1.6%, 95% CI -6.5 to 3.3, p=<0.001 for non-inferiority). Distal radial artery access was non-inferior to forearm radial artery access for final catheterization success rate (95.2% vs 96.8%; MD -1.6%, 95% CI -6.5 to 3.3; P<0.001 for non-inferiority).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: