Distal Versus Proximal Radial Intervention; Is It Really Worth of It?

Abstract

Objectives: Distal transradial approach (dTRA) is a promising technique with a decreased risk of radial artery occlusion and puncture-related injuries. There has been no data which compare dTRA and proximal transradial approach (pTRA) in Turkish population group, so far. Thus, researchers aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the dTRA versus the conventional pTRA in coronary procedures in this study. Methods: Between September 2021 and June 2022, patients scheduled for transradial angiography at a tertiary cardiac center were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly selected to undergo coronary imaging using either the distal dTRA or the conventional pTRA in equal numbers. A total of 79 patients were randomized to the proximal approach, and 77 patients were randomized to the dTRA. The primary endpoint was defined as procedural failure. Results: The success rate of cannulation of the dTRA was significantly lower compared to proximal pTRA (pTRA [89.6%] and pTRA [79%] p=0.002). The rate of radial artery thrombotic complications was not different between groups (proxymal %10.6 vs. distal %5.8, p=0.288). The time of cannulation and total procedural time were longer in the dTRA group (20–40 min, median 25 min) compared to the proximal radial group (15–30 min, median 20 min) p = 0.005. However, this did not affect the total scope time duration 3.3 min. (1.6–6.4) versus 2.4 min (1.6–3.7). Conclusion: dTRA has a relatively long access time with no advantages in terms of thrombotic complications in the radial artery.