Distal versus conventional radial artery access for coronary catheterization: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe distal radial artery (DRA) access is an alternative to the conventional radial artery (CRA) access for coronary angiography and interventions and appears to be associated with reduced incidence of certain outcomes.MethodsA systematic review was performed to evaluate differences between DRA versus CRA access for coronary angiography and/or interventions. Following preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta‐analysis‐protocols guidelines, two reviewers independently selected studies published in the electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL) from inception to October 10, 2022, followed by data extraction, meta‐analysis, and quality assessment.ResultsThe final review included 28 studies with (total: 9151 patients [DRA: 4474; CRA: 4677]). Compared with CRA, DRA access was found to be associated with a shorter time to achieve hemostasis (mean difference, MD: −32.49 [95% confidence interval, CI: −65.53, −2.46], p < 0.00001), and reduced incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) (risk ratio, RR: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.25, 0.57], p < 0.00001), any bleeding (RR: 0.44 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.86], p = 0.02), and pseudoaneurysm (RR: 0.41 [95% CI: 0.18, 0.99], p = 0.05). However, DRA access has increased access time (MD: 0.31 [95% CI: −0.09, 0.71], p < 0.00001) and crossover rates (RR: 2.75 [95% CI: 1.70, 4.44], p < 0.00001). There were no statistically significant differences in other technical aspects and complications.ConclusionDRA access is a safe and feasible approach for coronary angiography and interventions. Compared to CRA, DRA provides a shorter hemostasis time, lower incidence of RAO, any bleeding, and pseudoaneurysm, and is associated with increased access time and crossover rates.