Comparison of the feasibility and effectiveness of transradial coronary angiography via right versus left radial artery approaches (from the PREVAIL Study)

Abstract

It remains undefined if transradial coronary angiography from a right or left radial arterial approach differs in real-world practice. To address this issue, we performed a subanalysis of the PREVAIL study. The PREVAIL study was a prospective, multicenter, observational survey of unselected consecutive patients undergoing invasive cardiovascular procedures over a 1-month observation period, specifically aimed at assessing the outcomes of radial approach in the contemporary real world. The choice of arterial approach was left to the discretion of the operator. Prespecified end points of this subanalysis were procedural characteristics. Of 1,052 patients consecutively enrolled, 509 patients underwent transradial catheterization, 304 with a right radial and 205 with a left radial approach. Procedural success rates were similar between the 2 groups. Compared to the left radial group, the right radial group had longer procedure duration (46 ± 29 vs 33 ± 24 minutes, p <0.0001) and fluoroscopy time (765 ± 787 vs 533 ± 502, p <0.0001). At multivariate analysis, including a parsimonious propensity score for the choice of left radial approach, duration of procedure (beta coefficient 11.38, p <0.001) and total dose-area product (beta coefficient 11.38, p <0.001) were independently associated with the choice of the left radial artery approach. The operator's proficiency in right/left radial approach did not influence study results. In conclusion, right and left radial approaches are feasible and effective to perform percutaneous procedures. In the contemporary real world, however, the left radial route is associated with shorter procedures and lower radiologic exposure than the right radial approach, independently of an operator's proficiency.