Distal versus traditional radial access in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Distal radial access (DRA) is a well-tolerated and effective alternative to traditional radial access (TRA) for coronary procedures. However, the comparative value of these modalities remains unknown in the emergency setting, particularly in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). To compare DRA versus TRA for emergency coronary procedures through a meta-analysis. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing DRA versus TRA in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). All statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model. We included four studies comprising 543 patients undergoing emergency CAG or PCI, of whom 447 (82.3%) had STEMI. As compared with TRA, DRA was associated with lower radial artery occlusion rates (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.72) and shorter hemostasis time (MD, -4.23 h; 95% CI, -6.23 to 2.13). There was no significant difference between modalities in terms of puncture failure (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.31-6.19), crossover access (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.42-4.44), puncture time (SMD, 0.33; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.81), procedure time (MD, 0.97 min; 95% CI, -5.19 to 7.13), or rates of cannulation success (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.06). In terms of other periprocedural complications, there were no differences between both groups. These findings remained consistent in a subgroup analysis of patients with STEMI. In this meta-analysis, DRA was superior to TRA in terms of radial artery occlusion and hemostasis time, with similar rates of periprocedural complications.