Outcomes of distal versus conventional transradial access for coronary angiography and intervention: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION\nDistal transradial artery access (DTRA) has recently gained attention due to potential benefits in terms of local complications. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the utility of DTRA compared to conventional transradial artery access (CTRA) for coronary angiography and intervention.\n\n\nMETHOD\nMultiple databases were searched from inception through May 2021 for all the studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DTRA in the coronary field. The primary outcome was the access success rate. The secondary outcomes were periprocedural local complications (site hematoma, radial artery occlusion, and spasm) and procedural characteristics (cannulation, fluoroscopy, procedure, and radial artery compression times). All meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 12 studies (including four randomized control trials) with 1634 patients who underwent DTRA vs. 1657 with CTRA were included in the final analysis. The access success rate was similar between the two groups (odds ratio (OR):0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI):0.30-1.26; P\u202f=\u202f0.18; I2\u202f=\u202f61%). DTRA was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of radial artery occlusion (OR:0.36; 95% CI: 0.22-0.59; P\u202f<\u202f0.001; I2\u202f=\u202f0%) but similar rates of radial artery spasm and site hematoma when compared to CTRA. Regarding the procedural characteristics, despite having a longer canulation time (mean difference (min.) [MD] 0.89, 95% CI 0.36-1.42; P\u202f<\u202f0.0001), DTRA was associated with shorter compression time and comparable fluoroscopy and procedure times.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nOur meta-analysis demonstrates that the DTRA is effective and safe with superiority in preventing radial artery occlusion when compared to CTRA.