Distal versus conventional transradial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention: A meta-analysis

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