Efficacy and Safety of Distal Radial Artery Approach for Coronary Angiography: A Retrospective Study

Background: The distal radial artery approach has been employed as a potential alternative technique for coronary angiography. Nevertheless, its clinical implementation is significantly constrained by the narrow diameter of the radial artery. A comprehensive investigation of the efficacy and safety of the distal radial artery approach for coronary angiography is lacking. The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of the distal radial artery approach for coronary angiography and transradial artery access for interventional diagnosis and treatment. In addition, the effectiveness and safety of the distal radial artery approach for coronary artery angiography will be analyzed, for the wider adoption of this technique in clinical practice. Methods: A total of 68 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) who underwent coronary catheterization via the left distal radial artery approach from December 2020 to December 2022 using the Distal radial artery approach (TRA) com-prised the case-control study group. Seventy-three CHD patients who underwent routine left Transradial Artery Access coronary catheterization were selected as the Regular TRA group during the same period. Clinical data including age, body mass index (BMI), gender, CHD risk factors, routine drug treatment, ultrasonic-related indicators and operation-related indicators were collected from electronic medical records and the catheterization database from the two groups of patients. Results: The diameter and Endothelium-dependent vasodilation (noe FMD) of puncture vessels in the Distal TRA group were significantly lower than those in the Regular radial artery approach (TRA) group (p-value < 0.05). After a period of 48 hours following the catheterization, the puncture vessel diameter and flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the Distal TRA group were significantly lower compared to those of the Regular TRA group (p-value < 0.05). The effectiveness of transradial artery access was then compared be-tween the two groups. It was determined that the Distal TRA group exhibited significantly higher values in terms of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, puncture time, and heparin usage, in comparison to the Regular TRA group (p -value < 0.05). The occurrence rates of local hematoma, me-diastinal hematoma, retroperitoneal hematoma, pseudoa-neurysm, arteriovenous fistula, vagal reflex, vasospasm, blood transfusion, and other complications among patients in the Distal TRA group were comparable to those in the Regular TRA group (p-value > 0.05). The incidence of puncture and X-ray radiation in the Distal TRA group was found to be marginally higher compared to the Regular TRA group. This study suggests that the safety profile of patients undergoing coronary artery catheterization via the distal radial artery is relatively higher than those undergoing the procedure via the transradial artery, although the difference was not statistically significant (p-value > 0.05). Conclusions: The Distal radial artery approach can be used for conducting comprehensive coronary interventional diagnosis and treatment procedures, offering benefits such as reduced postoperative compression time, better hemostasis through the distal radial artery approach, and enhanced patient comfort. This approach demonstrates favorable efficacy and safety, making it a suitable routine puncture method for clinical treatment.