Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 2;22(1):74.
doi: 10.1186/s12872-022-02518-8.

Safety and efficacy of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via distal transradial artery access in the anatomical snuffbox: a single-centre prospective cohort study using a propensity score method

Feng Li #  1 , Gan-Wei Shi  1 , Xiao-Long Yu #  2 , Rui-Xiao Song  2 , Jian-Qiang Xiao  1 , Hao-Min Huang  1 , La-Mei Li  1 , Liu-Yan Zhang  1 , Chun Gong  1 , Gao-Jun Cai  3
Affiliations

Safety and efficacy of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via distal transradial artery access in the anatomical snuffbox: a single-centre prospective cohort study using a propensity score method

Feng Li et al. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. .

Abstract

Background: This study investigated the safety and efficacy of coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via distal transradial artery access (d-TRA).

Methods: For this single-centre prospective cohort study, a total of 1066 patients who underwent CAG or PCI procedures from September 2019 to November 2020 were included. Patients were divided into two groups: the d-TRA group (346) and the conventional transradial artery access (c-TRA) group (720) based on access site. A total of 342 pairs of patients were successfully matched using propensity score matching (PSM) for subsequent analysis.

Results: No significant differences in puncture success rate, procedural method, procedural time, sheath size, contrast dosage or fluoroscopy time were noted between the two groups. The puncture time in the d-TRA group was longer than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01), and the procedure success rate was lower than that in the c-TRA group (90.94% vs. 96.49%, P = 0.01). The haemostasis time in the d-TRA group was shorter than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01), and the visual analogue scale (VAS) was lower than that in the c-TRA group (P < 0.01). In addition, the prevalence of bleeding and haematoma in the d-TRA group was lower than that in the c-TRA group (1.75% vs. 7.31%, P < 0.01; 0.58% vs. 3.22%, P = 0.01, respectively). No significant difference in the incidence of numbness was noted between the two groups. No other complications were found in two groups.

Conclusion: d-TRA is as safe and effective as c-TRA for CAG and PCI. It has the advantages of improved comfort and fewer complications. Trail registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900026519.

Keywords: Anatomical snuffbox; Coronary atherosclerotic disease; Distal transradial artery access; Percutaneous coronary intervention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Catheterization by d-TRA and c-TRA. A Implantation of the sheath via c-TRA. B Haemostasis of the c-TRA. C Implantation of the sheath via d-TRA. D Haemostasis of the d-TRA
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Baseline characteristics before and after propensity score matching
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. GBD 2015 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388:1459–1544. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31012-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Feldman DN, Swaminathan RV, Kaltenbach LA, Baklanov DV, Kim LK, Wong SC, et al. Adoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007–2012) Circulation. 2013;127:2295–2306. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000536. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bajaj A, Pancholy S, Sothwal A, Nawaz Y, Boruah P. Transradial versus transfemoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019;20:790–798. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.10.025. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al. ESC scientific document group. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:87–165. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aoun J, Hattar L, Dgayli K, Wong G, Bhat T. Update on complications and their management during transradial cardiac catheterization. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2019;17:741–751. doi: 10.1080/14779072.2019.1675510. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms