Randomized comparison of proximal and distal radial access for coronary angiography and interventions

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Vascular access for coronary procedures is of paramount important not only for successful procedure but also to prevent complications. In comparison to femoral access, proximal radial artery (PRA) access at wrist is associated with decreased bleeding complications and mortality. The most important complication of PRA access is radial artery occlusion Use of the proximal radial artery (PRA) approach at wrist has several limitations: the need to supinate the hand, which can exacerbate chronic joint pain, the depth of the radial artery in large arms, which could make arterial puncture challenging even under ultrasound guidance, the risk of sporadic bleeding in the forearm, and the risk of radial artery occlusion. All above limitations can be overcome by distal radial artery (DRA) access in anatomical snuff box. Randomized Studies are lacking for the comparison between DRA and PRA approach in coronary procedures. Aims and objective To compare safety, efficacy and feasibility between PRA and DRA approach in randomized fashion. Material and methods This was single center randomized controlled trial. 320 patients were randomized in PRA and DRA groups. PRA approach was in wrist and DRA approach was in anatomical snuff box. Primary endpoint was cannulation failure (failure to achieve radial access) and transradial failure (failure to complete procedure after successful access). Secondary safety outcome includes major (compartment syndrome, need for vascular surgery, hand dysfunction, nerve palsy ,arteriovenous fistula, hematoma requiring blood transfusion, proximal radial artery occlusion) and minor (radial artery spasm, hematoma not requiring transfusion or causing compartment syndrome, ecchymosis, local edema, paresthesia, pseudoaneurysm) complications; secondary efficacy outcome were puncture attempts, cannulation time, procedure time, radiation dose, hemostasis time and quality of life endpoint was pain score . Results Each group was having 160 patients. In DRA group 73.9 % were CAG and 26.1 % were PCI; in PRA group and 75.7 were CAG and 24.3 were PCI. Cannulation failure was more in DRA group (7.5 % vs 2.5 %, P < 0.001) without difference in transradial failure (n = 3 vs 4, p =0.764). There were no major complications in both groups except PRAO which was significantly less in DRA group (0 % vs 5.2 %, p= 0.007). Puncture attempts, cannulation time, pain score were more in DRA (1.65 vs 1.29, P < 0.001;3.23 vs 2.62 minutes, p < 0.001;25.5 vs 21.6 minutes, p = 0.039 respectively). There was no significant difference for minor complications in both groups. Conclusion DRA approach is as safe and feasible as PRA approach and causes significantly less PRAO. DRA approach may be advocated as default approach where radial access is chosen for coronary procedures. Abstract Figure. primary outcome Abstract Figure. Procedural characteristic