Dataset Information

Comparison of distal radial access versus standard transradial access in patients with smaller diameter radial Arteries(The distal radial versus transradial access in small transradial ArteriesStudy: D.A.T.A - S.T.A.R study).

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To evaluate safety and efficacy of distal right radial access (DRRA) compared to right radial access (RRA), for coronary procedures, in patients with smaller diameter radial arteries (SDRA) (radial artery diameter (RAD) < 2.1 mm).

Methods and results

This is a retrospective analysis of safety and efficacy of DRRA Vs. RRA in patients undergoing coronary procedures at our cardiac catheterization laboratories over a 10- month period between September 2017 and June, 2018 (first 5 calendar months with RRA-first; next 5 calendar months with DRRA-first). All patients underwent pre-procedure ultrasound of arm arteries. All patients had RAD<2.1 mm (mean RAD 1.63 ± 0.27 mm; RAD≤1.6 mm in 73.5%). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Primary end-point of puncture success was significantly lower in DRRA vs RRA group [79.5% vs 98.5%, p < 0.0001]. Puncture success was also lower in the subgroup of patients with RAD <1.6 mm Vs. ≥ 1.6 mm in the DRRA group (p < 0.0001). The secondary end-point of puncture time was significantly higher (2.1 ± 1.4 min vs. 1.0 ± 0.45 min, p < 0.00001) in the DRRA Vs. RRA group. The occurrence of vascular access site complications (including access site hematomas), radial artery occlusion (RAO) and distal RAO at day 1 and day 30 were similar between RRA and DRRA groups.Non-vascular access-site complication was seen only in the DRRA group.

Conclusion

DRRA is a safe and effective access for coronary procedures; though technically challenging in patients with SDRA (RAD<2.1 mm; mean RAD 1.63 ± 0.27 mm), with lower puncture success and higher puncture time compared to RRA.

SUBMITTER: Chugh Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7961259 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDistal transradial access (dTRA) has been suggested to have great advantages over cTRA. However, there is a lack of preliminary data on dTRA in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To explore the feasibility and safety of distal transradial access in patients with acute chest pain.MethodsA total of 1269 patients complaining of acute chest pain in our emergency department from January 2020 to February 2022 were retrospectively included. The patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into the conventional transradial access (cTRA) group (n = 238) and the dTRA group (n = 158). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the baseline differences.ResultsThe cannulation success rate in the dTRA group was significantly lower than that in the cTRA group (87.41% vs. 94.81%, p < 0.05). No significant differences in the puncture time and total procedure time were noted between the two groups (p > 0.05). Compared with the cTRA group, the hemostasis duration was significantly shorter [4(4, 4) h vs. 10(8, 10) h, p < 0.001) and the incidence of minor bleeding (BARC Type I and II) was significantly lower in the dTRA group than that in the cTRA group (0.85% vs. 5.48%, p = 0.045). Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion was observed in six patients (5.83%) in the cTRA group and one patient (1.14%) in the dTRA group (p = 0.126). The subgroup analysis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) showed no significant differences in the puncture time, D-to-B time or total procedure time between the two groups.ConclusionsThe dTRA for emergency CAG or PCI has an acceptable success rate and puncture time, a shorter hemostasis time, and a downward trend in RAO rate compared to the cTRA. The dTRA did not increase the D-to-B time in emergency coronary interventions in STEMI patients. On the contrary, a low incidence of RAO by the dTRA created an opportunity for future coronary interventions in non-culprit vessels in the same access.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registry number: ChiCTR2200061104, date of registration: June 15, 2022).