Key result
Distal radial artery access resulted in a similar rate of radial artery occlusion compared to forearm radial artery access (10.4% vs 11.7%; OR 3.24, p=0.24) in patients undergoing coronary intervention.
Why the study?
Data comparing distal radial artery access with forearm radial artery access regarding radial artery patency have been lacking in major trials.
Does distal radial artery access reduce radial artery occlusion and local complications compared to forearm radial artery access in patients undergoing coronary intervention?
Cross-Sectional (n=198)
No
Does distal radial artery access reduce radial artery occlusion and local complications compared to forearm radial artery access in patients undergoing coronary intervention?
Odds Ratio: 3.24 (95% CI 1.15–8.42)
Absolute Event Rate: 10.4% vs 11.7%
p-value: p=0.24
Distal radial artery access is a feasible alternative to traditional forearm radial access for coronary interventions, though it is associated with longer cannulation times and higher rates of spasm, while reducing hematoma risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
No difference in occlusion rates; leaves open net benefit of distal access pending randomized trials.
Tariq et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in Coronary artery disease requiring cardiac catheterization (n=198). Distal radial artery access vs. Forearm radial artery access was evaluated on Radial artery occlusion (RAO) (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.15-8.42, p=0.24). Distal radial artery access resulted in a similar rate of radial artery occlusion compared to forearm radial artery access (10.4% vs 11.7%; OR 3.24, p=0.24) in patients undergoing coronary intervention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: