Meta-Analysis Comparing Distal Radial Artery Approach Versus Traditional for Coronary Procedures

Abstract

Distal radial artery access (DRA) is recommended as the preferred approach over the traditional proximal radial artery access (TRA) for coronary procedures; however, there are limited randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the 2. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of all RCTs from inception to July 26, 2021, that compared DRA versus TRA in patients who underwent coronary procedures. The statistical analysis was performed using a random effect model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 5 RCTs were included with a total of 1,005 patients. A pooled analysis of the data showed that the rate of successful cannulation was similar between the 2 arms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.07, p=0.16, I2=94%). The rate of radial artery spasm significantly favored the DRA arm as compared with TRA (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75, p=0.0007, I2=0%). Significantly more patients from the DRA arm required alternative arterial access. Moreover, the DRA group had an insignificantly decreased rates of radial artery occlusion (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.20, p=0.08, I2=46%) and early discharge after transradial stenting of coronary arteries access-site hematomas (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.149, p=0.22, I2=0%). The mean time for hemostasis was significantly shorter in the DRA arm (mean difference -6.64, 95% CI -10.37 to -2.90, p=0.0005, I2=88%). In conclusion, DRA should be considered as a viable, effective, and safe arterial access method for patients who underwent coronary procedures.