Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 1, 2025

Transradial Access Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients
Published on: September 20, 2020
Meta-Analysis Comparing Distal Radial Versus Traditional Radial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Angiography
Yasar Sattar1, Usama Talib2, Mohammed Faisaluddin3
1Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, West Virgina University, Morgantown, WV.
Insights
Distal radial (DR) access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) shows a lower risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) compared to traditional radial (TR) access. Other procedural complications were similar between DR and TR access methods.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
- Vascular Access Techniques
Background:
- Limited comparative data exists for distal radial (DR) versus traditional radial (TR) access in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
- Understanding the safety and efficacy of different radial access sites is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes in interventional cardiology.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the outcomes of distal radial (DR) access versus traditional radial (TR) access for coronary angiography and PCI.
- To evaluate the rates of radial artery occlusion (RAO), access failure, and other access site-related complications between DR and TR access.
Main Methods:
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing DR and TR access for PCI was conducted.
- Online databases (Medline, Cochrane Central) were searched to identify relevant studies.
- Primary outcomes included radial artery occlusion (RAO) and access failure; secondary outcomes comprised hematoma, bleeding, pain, spasm, dissection, and crossover rates. A random-effect model was used for analysis.
Main Results:
- The meta-analysis included 16 studies with 9,973 patients (DR: 4,750; TR: 5,523).
- Distal radial (DR) access was associated with a significantly lower risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) compared to traditional radial (TR) access (OR 0.51, p=0.02).
- No significant differences were observed in access failure rates, hematoma, bleeding, pain, spasm, dissection, or crossover between DR and TR access.
Conclusions:
- Distal radial (DR) access demonstrates a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) compared to traditional radial (TR) access.
- Procedural complications such as access failure, bleeding, and pain are comparable between DR and TR access methods.
- DR access may be a favorable alternative to TR access, particularly for reducing the risk of radial artery occlusion.
Abstract:
Data comparing outcomes of distal radial (DR) and traditional radial (TR) access of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited. Online databases including Medline and Cochrane Central databases were explored to identify studies that compared DR and TR access for PCI. The primary outcome was the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO) and access failure. Secondary outcomes included access site hematoma, access site bleeding, access site pain, radial artery spasm, radial artery dissection, and crossover. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) with a random-effect model, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p <0.05 were used for statistical significance. Metaregression was performed for 16 studies with 9,973 (DR 4,750 and TR 5,523) patients were included. Compared with TR, DR was associated with lower risk of RAO (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.90, I2 = 42.6%, p = 0.02). RAO was lower in DR undergoing coronary angiography rather than PCI. Access failure rate (OR 1.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.55, I2 87.36%, p = 0.24), access site hematoma (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.83, I2 0%, p = 0.68), access site pain (OR 2.22, 95% CI 0.28 to 17.38, I2 0%, p = 0.45), access site bleeding (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.62, I2 85.11%, p = 0.91), radial artery spasm (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.29, I2 0%, p = 0.35), radial artery dissection (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.84, I2 0%, p = 0.45), and crossover (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.70, I2 25.48%, p = 0.33) did not show any significant difference. DR was associated with lower incidence RAO when compared with TR, whereas other procedural-related complications were similar.
More Related Videos
07:25Predicting Amputation using Local Circulating Mononuclear Progenitor Cells in Angioplasty-treated Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia
Published on: September 22, 2020
10:28Interventional Diagnostic Procedure: A Practical Guide for the Assessment of Coronary Vascular Function
Published on: March 15, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Assessment of apical radial pulse
The A-R pulse assessment involves simultaneous evaluation of the apical and radial pulses. When the apical and radial pulse rates vary, this assessment helps identify a pulse deficit.
Pre-Procedural Preparation
Assessment of radial pulse
The radial pulse, located at the wrist, is often the preferred site for assessing peripheral pulse because of its accessibility and dependability. The process of determining the radial pulse involves several steps:
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Arterial Disease II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Evaluation