Simultaneous Radial and Ipsilateral Ulnar Artery Compression versus Isolated Radial Artery Compression after Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Angiography and/or Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Simultaneous ulnar and radial artery compression (SURC) has emerged as a strategy to increase radial artery flow and mitigate radial artery occlusion (RAO) while achieving adequate hemostasis after transradial access (TRA), though its technical adoption has been limited worldwide. Methods: A systematic search of studies comparing SURC versus isolated radial artery compression after TRA for coronary angiography and/or intervention was performed. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using random-effects models. Odds ratios (OR) with relative 95% confidence intervals (CI) and standardized mean difference were used as measures of effect estimates. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of overall RAO. Results: A total of 6 studies and 6793 patients were included. SURC method as compared to isolated radial artery compression was associated with a lower risk of RAO both overall (OR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13–0.61, p < 0.001; number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] =38) and in-hospital (OR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.75; p = 0.01, NNTB = 36), with a reduced risk of unsuccessful patent hemostasis (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.85; p = 0.03, NNT = 5) and upper extremity pain (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.95; p = 0.04, NNTB = 124). No significant difference was observed in hemostasis time and in the risk of hematoma. Conclusion: Compared to isolated radial artery compression, SURC is associated with lower risk of RAO, unsuccessful patent hemostasis, and reported upper limb pain, without any trade-off in safety outcomes. With further development of dedicated dual compression devices, the proposed technique should be freed from usage constraints.