Can Distal Radial Access Replace Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Catheterization? A Study Comparing Puncture Time, Attempts, Patient and Operator Comfort.

backgroundTo compare distal (dTRA) and classical (cTRA) transradial approaches for coronary catheterization with respect to puncture attempts, puncture time, operator and patient comfort, and safety outcomes.

methodsIn this prospective observational study, patients undergoing coronary catheterization for standard indications via dTRA or cTRA approaches from July 2019 to May 2020 were included. Clinicodemographic and laboratory characteristics were recorded. Puncture time, number of puncture attempts, operator and patient comfort on the visual analogue scale (VAS), and access site complications like hematoma and radial artery occlusion were recorded. Patients were analyzed in the same group as the initial puncture, even if there was a cross-over.

resultsOf the 130 patients (40.8% women), 50.8% and 49.2% belonged to dTRA and cTRA groups, respectively. dTRA group required more than one puncture attempt more frequently than cTRA group (30.3% vs. 15.6%; P =.047); consequently, puncture time was longer (60s vs. 50s; P =.031, respectively). However, puncture time was comparable if the puncture was successful in the first attempt (47.5s vs. 45s; P =.492). Patient comfort was comparable (7.2 ± 0.9 vs. 7.2 ± 1.2; P =.852), but operator comfort was more with cTRA approach (8.3 ± 1.6 vs. 8.8 ± 1.2; P =.048). Post-procedure, cTRA had more minor bleeding than dTRA approach. There was no major bleeding in either group. The occurrence of radial artery occlusion was comparable in both groups.

conclusionAlthough dTRA needed more attempts for successful puncture, puncture time was comparable with cTRA when puncture was successful on the first attempt. Therefore, one attempt at dTRA puncture could be a reasonable approach in patients undergoing coronary catheterization.