A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention

OBJECTIVES: To compare feasibility and safety between ultrasound-guided and conventional distal transradial access (dTRA). BACKGROUND: Distal transradial access, a new technique for coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), is safe and feasible and will become popular worldwide. Ultrasound-guided dTRA has been advocated to reduce failure rate and access-site complications. However, to date, the comparison of feasibility and safety between ultrasound-guided and conventional dTRA has not been reported. METHOD: Overall, 137 patients (144 procedures) who underwent CAG or PCI using dTRA between September 2018 and February 2019 were investigated. These patients were classified into two groups: C (dTRA with conventional punctures; 76 patients, 79 procedures) and U (dTRA with ultrasound-guided punctures; 61 patients, 65 procedures) groups. Successful procedural rate, procedural outcomes, and complication rate during hospital stays were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The procedural success rate was significantly higher in the U group than in the C group (97% vs. 87%, P=0.0384). However, the rate of PCI, puncture time, total fluoroscopy time, the volume of contrast medium, the rate of access-site ecchymosis, and incidence of nerve disorder were similar between the two groups. Additionally, radial artery occlusion after the procedure did not occur in this study. CONCLUSION: The ultrasound-guided dTRA for CAG or PCI was associated with a lower failure rate than conventional dTRA. However, there were no significant differences in puncture time and complication rate between the two procedures.