The technical features of the diagnosis or treatment of coronary artery disease through the distal radial artery approach at the anatomical snuffbox compared with the conventional radial artery approach

• DOI: 10.1186/s13019-022-01979-4
• Publication Date: 2022-09-07T04:02:18Z
• Authors: Yingkai Xu; Hongzhen Niu; Yi Yu; Lixia Yang; Haiyang Wang; Biyang Zhang; Qi Zhao; Qiang Yong; Yujie Zhou
• Keywords: RD1-811; Transradial intervention approach; Arterial Occlusive Diseases; Coronary Artery Disease; Coronary Angiography; Percutaneous coronary intervention; 3. Good health; 03 medical and health sciences; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; 0302 clinical medicine; Anesthesiology; Radial Artery; Humans; Surgery; RD78.3-87.3; Radial artery occlusion; Distal transradial intervention approach; Research Article; Retrospective Studies

Abstract Background To compare the surgical effects of coronary intervention through the transradial intervention (TRI) versus distal transradial intervention (dTRI) approach.

Methods From September 2020 to April 2021, 302 patients undergoing coronary artery angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention in our hospital were retrospectively included. Patients were divided into the TRI group and dTRI group with 151 cases in each group. The technique features, lesion features, and cannulation process were compared between the two groups.

Results The number of patients who underwent CAG in the dTRI group (35.1%) was significantly greater compared with the TRI group (12.6%) (P < 0.01). The rates of triple vessel lesions, calcification lesions and chronic total occlusion lesions were increased in the TRI group compared with the dTRI group (P < 0.05). The average radial artery diameter (RAD) in the TRI group (2.550 ± 0.417 mm) was greater than that in the dTRI group (2.070 ± 0.360 mm) (P < 0.05). The hemostasis time of the dTRI group (173.272 ± 41.807 min) was lower than that of the TRI group (273.417 ± 42.098 min) (P < 0.05). The radial artery occlusion (RAO) rates in the dTRI group (2.6%) were lower than those in the TRI group (8.6%) (P < 0.05). The dTRI group had a higher satisfaction score than the TRI group (P > 0.05). RAD at the puncture site was a predictor of the overall cannulation success rate with an AUC of 0.747 (95% CI 0.663–0.860; P < 0.05).

Conclusions Despite a steep learning curve, the dTRI approach had a shorter hemostasis time, reduced RAO rates, and notable preliminary safety results compared with the TRI approach. The dTRI approach can be used as a supplemental method to the TRI approach.