Key result
Distal radial access is increasingly adopted for various percutaneous interventions due to potential benefits, though evidence regarding its feasibility across all interventions remains dynamic.
Why the study?
Evidence for distal radial access remains dynamic and discrepant, raising questions about whether its smaller diameter and more angled course can support all types of transcatheter interventions.
Does distal radial access improve outcomes and reduce complications compared to conventional transradial access in patients undergoing transcatheter interventions?
Does distal radial access improve outcomes and reduce complications compared to conventional transradial access in patients undergoing transcatheter interventions?
Distal radial access is a versatile and feasible alternative to conventional transradial access for various transcatheter interventions, offering potential benefits like lower radial artery occlusion rates and improved ergonomics.
May support distal radial access in select cases; leaves open confirmation of benefits in randomized trials.
Conventional transradial access has been established as the gold standard for invasive coronary angiography and percutaneous interventions by the current European and American guidelines. The distal or snuffbox radial artery access represents an alternative transradial access site that allows radial sheath insertion with the patient's hand pronated. Firstly described 40 years ago, it exploded in popularity only recently. Promising additional benefits, the distal radial access is increasingly being adopted in various types of percutaneous interventions, being preferred by many interventional cardiologists and radiologists for its reduced vascular complications and time to hemostasis, and improvement of patient and operator comfort. Other centers consider it a fad, waiting for solid clear evidence and benefits. The evidence is dynamic and discrepant, depending on the center, the operator, and how it was collected (randomized controlled vs observational studies). Another essential aspect raised by "skeptics" was whether distal radial access, by its smaller diameter and more angled course, can support all types of interventions. The aim of this review is to gather all the scenarios where distal radial access has been utilized and to conclude whether this vascular access is feasible across all transcatheter interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Achim et al. (2022) conducted a review in Transcatheter interventions. Distal radial artery access vs. Conventional transradial access was evaluated on Feasibility across all transcatheter interventions. Distal radial access is increasingly adopted for various percutaneous interventions due to potential benefits, though evidence regarding its feasibility across all interventions remains dynamic.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: