A Meta-Analysis of Traditional Radial Access and Distal Radial Access in Transradial Access for Percutaneous Coronary Procedures

Abstract

IntroductionRadial approaches are classified into traditional radial access (TRA) and more contemporary distal radial access (DRA), with recently published comparative studies reporting inconsistent outcomes. As there have been several recent randomized control trials (RCT), we assessed the totality of evidence in an updated meta-analysis to compare outcomes of DRA and TRA. MethodsWe searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to August 2022 for studies comparing DRA and TRA for coronary angiography. Primary outcomes were the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO) and access failure. Secondary outcomes included hematomas and puncture site bleeding. The pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) was calculated for each outcome. ResultsA total of 14,071 patients undergoing coronary angiography from 23 studies, including 5488 patients from 10 RCTs. The mean age of the study population was 59.8 ± 5.9 years with 66.2 % men. Outcomes for a total of 6796 (48.3 %) patients undergoing DRA and 7166 (50.9 %) patients undergoing TRA were compared. DRA was associated with a lower rate of RAO (RR = 0.36, 95CI [0.27, 0.48], I2 = 0 %) but an increased risk of vascular access failure (RR = 2.38, 95CI [1.46, 3.87], I2 = 82.7 %). There was no significant difference in the rate of bleeding or hematoma formation. ConclusionIn an updated metanalysis, DRA is associated with lower rates of RAO but with higher rates of access failure.