Comparison of Outcome of Traditional Radial Artery versus Distal Artery Approach in Patients undergoing Coronary Intervention

Abstract

Although most interventional cardiologists favor radial artery (RA) access because to its ergonomic practicality, data on distal artery (DRA) access with relation to RA patency has not been compared in major trials. Objective: To compare the access feasibility of distal radial artery vs Forearm radial artery for cardiac catheterization operations. Methods: A cross sectional study of total of 198 patients undergoing radial coronary operations were monitored for radial artery occlusion (RAO) and other local problems with DRA and FRA access. Purposive sampling was performed. The inclusion criteria include all participants who had a palpable distal or proximal radial pulse. The patient was free to choose between the two approaches. Patients having an inappropriate radial pulse were eliminated. Results: The main objective was fulfilled by 11.7% in the FRA and 10.4% in the DRA group (p-value=0.24). Cannulation time was greater in the DRA group compared to the FRA group; however, this had no effect on hemostasis time (254 20 vs. 254 17; p-value=0.72). Hematoma (26.4% vs. 12.5%; OR (95% CI): 3.18 (1.09–5.63); p-value 0.001) was more prevalent with FRA, while radial artery spasm (18.6 % vs. 22.9 %; OR (95 % CI): 0.53 (0.03 – 0.95); p-value=0.01). Conclusions: When compared to Forearm Radial Artery access, Distal Radial Artery access is linked with poorer cannulation success rates and greater RAO rates. It is, however, linked to the production of lower hematomas