Distal versus proximal radial access in coronary angiography: a meta-analysis.

Abstract

Distal radial access (DRA) represents a promising alternative to conventional proximal radial access (PRA) for coronary angiography. Substantial advantages regarding safety and efficacy have been suggested for DRA, but the ideal access route remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare safety, efficacy and feasibility of DRA to PRA. National Library of Medicine PubMed, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials and registry studies comparing DRA and PRA that were published between January 1, 2017 and April, 2024. Primary endpoint was the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO). Secondary endpoints were access failure, access time, procedure time, arterial spasm, hematoma, and hemostasis time. Data extraction was performed by two independent investigators. Relative risks were aggregated using a random effects model. We applied meta-analytic regression to assess study characteristic variables as possible moderators of the study effects. 44 studies with a total of 21,081 patients were included. We found a significantly lower rate of RAO after DRA (DRA 1.28%, PRA 4.76%, p < .001) with a 2.92 times lower risk compared to the proximal approach (Log Risk Ratio = -1.07, p < .001). Conversely, the risk for access failure was 2.42 times higher for DRA compared to PRA (Log Risk Ratio = 0.88, p < .001). In this largest meta-analysis to date, we were able to show that rates of RAO are reduced with DRA compared to conventional PRA. This suggests DRA is a safe alternative to PRA.