Home > Journals > Minerva Cardiology and Angiology > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Cardiology and Angiology 2021 Mar 11

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

 

Minerva Cardiology and Angiology 2021 Mar 11

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5683.21.05483-9

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Access-site hematoma in distal and conventional transradial access: a randomized trial

Stefano LUCREZIOTTI , Simone PERSAMPIERI, Domitilla GENTILE, Lucia BARBIERI, Diego SALERNO-URIARTE, Federica VALLI, Ludovico SABATELLI, Giovanni PANZACCHI, Marco CENTOLA, Stefano CARUGO

Division of Cardiology, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy


PDF


BACKGROUND: Distal transradial access (dTRA) has been recently proposed as an innovative access for coronary procedures and a valuable alternative to conventional transradial access (cTRA). The aim of this study was to assess the safety of dTRA versus cTRA in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary angiography and intervention.
METHODS: In this single-center randomized trial, consecutive patients admitted for stable cardiac condition or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were assigned to dTRA or cTRA. The primary endpoint was an early discharge after transradial stenting of coronary arteries (EASY) grade ≥II access-site hematoma (ASH). Vascular access failure, radial artery occlusion (RAO) at hospital discharge , 30-day rates of death, myocardial infarction, stroke and bleeding not related to coronary artery bypass grafting were considered as secondary endpoints.
RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were included and randomized to dTRA (n=100) or cTRA (n=104). The two populations were similar, except for a higher percentage of ACS in the dTRA than in the cTRA group (38% versus 24%, P=0.022). The rate of EASY grade ≥II ASH was lower in dTRA than in cTRA patients, but the difference was not statistically significant (4% versus 8.4%, respectively, P=0.25). Vascular access failure was more frequent in dTRA patients than in cTRA patients (34% versus 8.7%, P<0.0001). We detected no case of RAO at hospital discharge and similar rates of 30-day adverse events in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: DTRA is safe and feasible. When compared to cTRA, dTRA is technically more demanding and limited by more frequent crossover to an alternative vascular access.


KEY WORDS: Radial artery; Hematoma; Snuffbox; Coronary angiography: Coronary intervention

top of page