Key result
Distal transradial access resulted in a 0% rate of vascular complications compared to 0.5% for proximal transradial and 2.9% for transfemoral access, though it was associated with a higher crossover rate of 9.2%.
Why the study?
The authors sought to analyze complication and crossover rates comparing distal radial artery access in the anatomical snuffbox to proximal transradial and transfemoral access in invasive coronary procedures.
Does distal transradial access reduce puncture site complications compared to proximal transradial and transfemoral access in patients undergoing coronary procedures?
Cohort (n=748)
No
Does distal transradial access reduce puncture site complications compared to proximal transradial and transfemoral access in patients undergoing coronary procedures?
Distal transradial access for coronary procedures eliminates puncture site complications compared to proximal radial and femoral access, though it is associated with a higher need for access crossover.
Background The transradial access has gained great prominence in interventional coronary procedures due to lower complication rates, especially when the radial artery is punctured distally, in the anatomical snuffbox. The objective of this study was to analyze the complication and crossover rates of the access routes in invasive coronary procedures, comparing the distal radial artery to the proximal transradial route in the styloid process and the transfemoral access. Methods This was a prospective, observational, and single-center cohort study. The results of access routes were compared, using the primary outcomes of puncture site-related complications and initial arterial access crossover. Results A total of 748 patients were included; in that, 152 (20.3%) in the Distal Transradial Access Group, 388 (51.9%) in the Proximal Transradial Access Group, and 208 (27.8%) in the Transfemoral Access Group. No complications were observed in the Distal Transradial Access Group, whereas two patients (0.5%) had mild local hematomas in the Proximal Transradial Access Group, and six participants (2.9%) had complications in the Transfemoral Access Group, with mild local hematomas in four patients (1.9%), a pseudoaneurysm in one (0.5%), and an active bleeding in one (0.5%) – all with no need for surgical intervention (p=0.01). The crossover rate was 9.2% in the Distal Transradial Access Group, 5.9% in the Proximal Transradial Access Group, and 0.9% in the Transfemoral Access Group (p=0.001). Conclusion The distal radial artery access had a lower rate of vascular/hemorrhagic complications when compared to the proximal transradial access in the styloid process and the transfemoral access. However, the crossover rate was higher when the distal radial artery access was the operator’s first choice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sylvestre et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring invasive coronary procedures (n=748). Distal transradial access vs. Proximal transradial access and transfemoral access was evaluated on Puncture site-related complications (p=0.01). Distal transradial access resulted in a 0% rate of vascular complications compared to 0.5% for proximal transradial and 2.9% for transfemoral access, though it was associated with a higher crossover rate of 9.2%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: