Mohanad Hamandi1, Marwan Saad2, Rimsha Hasan3, Michael Megaly4, J Dawn Abbott2, Chad Dib1, Molly Szerlip1, Srinivasa Potluri1, Amir Lotfi5, Ferdinand Kiemeneij6, Karim M Al-Azizi7. 1. Department of Interventional Cardiology, Baylor Scott & White-The Heart Hospital, Plano, TX, USA. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Warren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Minneapolis Heart Institute, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 5. Interventional Cardiology, Baystate Medical Center, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Springfield, MA, USA. 6. Interventional Cardiology, Cardiologie Kliniek Flevoland, Lelystad, Netherlands. 7. Department of Interventional Cardiology, Baylor Scott & White-The Heart Hospital, Plano, TX, USA. Electronic address: Karim.Alazizi@BSWHealth.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distal transradial artery access (dTRA) through the anatomical snuffbox is a novel approach for performing coronary angiography and interventions. However, the safety and efficacy of dTRA as compared to conventional TRA (cTRA) remains unknown. We aim to evaluate the outcomes of dTRA versus cTRA for coronary angiography and intervention. METHODS: Electronic search of the National Library of Medicine PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was performed until April 2019 for studies comparing the clinical outcomes of dTRA approach versus conventional TRA (cTRA) approach in coronary angiography and interventions. Random-effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RR) were calculated. The main outcome was failure of access site utilization. Other outcomes included access site hematoma, radial artery spasm, dissection, and occlusion. RESULTS: Five studies (4 observational and 1 randomized controlled) with a total of 6746 patients (dTRA n = 3209 and cTRA n = 3537) were available for analysis. The failure rate was similar in dTRA and cTRA groups (5.26% versus 3.75%; RR = 1.36; 95%CI 0.41-4.48; p = 0.62). Similarly, no difference was observed between dTRA and cTRA in regards to access site hematoma (1.20% versus 1.24%, RR = 1.01; 95%CI 0.49-2.07; p = 0.99), radial artery spasm (1.42 versus 3.84%, RR = 0.91; 95%CI 0.32-2.62; p = 0.86), or radial artery dissection (0.11 versus 0.20%, RR = 0.63; 95%CI 0.18-2.16; p = 0.46). The rate of radial artery occlusion was lower with dTRA (2.30 versus 4.86%, RR = 0.51; 95%CI 0.32-0.81; p = 0.004) as compared to cTRA. CONCLUSION: Distal TRA appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional TRA. The outcomes of this novel technique warrant further randomized studies.
BACKGROUND: Distal transradial artery access (dTRA) through the anatomical snuffbox is a novel approach for performing coronary angiography and interventions. However, the safety and efficacy of dTRA as compared to conventional TRA (cTRA) remains unknown. We aim to evaluate the outcomes of dTRA versus cTRA for coronary angiography and intervention. METHODS: Electronic search of the National Library of Medicine PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was performed until April 2019 for studies comparing the clinical outcomes of dTRA approach versus conventional TRA (cTRA) approach in coronary angiography and interventions. Random-effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RR) were calculated. The main outcome was failure of access site utilization. Other outcomes included access site hematoma, radial artery spasm, dissection, and occlusion. RESULTS: Five studies (4 observational and 1 randomized controlled) with a total of 6746 patients (dTRA n = 3209 and cTRA n = 3537) were available for analysis. The failure rate was similar in dTRA and cTRA groups (5.26% versus 3.75%; RR = 1.36; 95%CI 0.41-4.48; p = 0.62). Similarly, no difference was observed between dTRA and cTRA in regards to access site hematoma (1.20% versus 1.24%, RR = 1.01; 95%CI 0.49-2.07; p = 0.99), radial artery spasm (1.42 versus 3.84%, RR = 0.91; 95%CI 0.32-2.62; p = 0.86), or radial artery dissection (0.11 versus 0.20%, RR = 0.63; 95%CI 0.18-2.16; p = 0.46). The rate of radial artery occlusion was lower with dTRA (2.30 versus 4.86%, RR = 0.51; 95%CI 0.32-0.81; p = 0.004) as compared to cTRA. CONCLUSION: Distal TRA appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional TRA. The outcomes of this novel technique warrant further randomized studies.
Authors: H Hoffman; M S Jalal; H E Masoud; R B Pons; I Rodriguez Caamaño; P Khandelwal; T Prakash; G C Gould Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: James Ronald; Nicholas Durocher; Jonathan G. Martin; Tony P. Smith; Charles Y. Kim; Alan A. Sag Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Anna Luisa Kühn; Jasmeet Singh; Viraj M Moholkar; Sudhakar R Satti; Katyucia de Macedo Rodrigues; Francesco Massari; Matthew J Gounis; Archie McGowan; Ajit S Puri Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-13 Impact factor: 1.610