Distal versus conventional transradial access for coronary angiography: a pooled analysis from the randomized RAPID trial

Abstract

Abstract Background Transradial access (TRA) is the recommended approach for coronary procedures considering safety benefits over femoral access with radial artery occlusion (RAO) being the most frequent complication. Although usually not clinically significant, the presence of RAO affects potential future procedures and medical treatments. Distal TRA (dTRA) has been suggested to reduce the risk of postprocedural RAO compared to conventional TRA (cTRA) with, however, inconsistent results in clinical trials. Purpose This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of dTRA versus cTRA in patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography. Methods The RAPID trial is a single-center, open-label, 2x2 factorial, randomized study of patients undergoing coronary angiography through a 6-F radial access. The trial was stopped early by the data and safety monitoring board after the second pre-planned interim analysis and inclusion of 600 participants. Patients were randomized to dTRA or cTRA with further stratification according to periprocedural heparin use and preexisting oral anticoagulation. The primary endpoints were the incidence of RAO assessed by vascular ultrasound and puncture-site related bleedings. Results The final study population consisted of 298 patients randomized to dTRA and 302 patients to cTRA. Periprocedural heparin was administered in 382 patients (63.7%) and percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 161 cases (26.8%) without differences between the study groups (p=0.700 and p=0.465; respectively). Distal TRA was associated with a significantly increased number of puncture attempts (2.4 ± 2.0 versus 1.5 ± 1.2; p<0.001) and failed punctures leading to access site crossover (11.7% versus 5.0%; p=0.003). Consequently, the total procedure time was longer in the dTRA group (30 min versus 25 min; p=0.004) without increasing fluoroscopy time (p=0.320), dose area product (p=0.245), or contrast volume (p=0.884). Patent hemostasis was achieved in 91.7% of patients with cTRA. The rates of RAO (16.1% versus 15.6%, p=0.855) and puncture-site related bleedings (6.7% versus 8.3%; p=0.466) were similar in both groups. Conclusions According to this study, dTRA does not reduce the risk of RAO or bleeding events compared to cTRA.