Abstract

Comparison of distal radial with conventional radial access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Author(s): Darko Kitanoski, Arman Postadzhiyan, Vasil Velchev, Nikolay Stoyanov, Zhan Zimbakov, Igor Spiroski, Oliver Bushljetikj, Hristo Pejkov, Jorgo Kostov, Oliver Kalpak, Igor Zdravkovski, Ivan Vasilev, Hayber Taravari, Aleksandar Jovkovski, Marija Vavlukis, Sasko Kedev, Biljana Zafirovska

Background: There is limited data available regarding the technique of dTRA, and its potential benefit in patients with STEMI. This study investigated the feasibility, safety, and potential benefit of dTRA in patients with STEMI, compared to conventional TR approach.

Methods: This was a prospective single center study that included 292 patients referred for STEMI. 152 (52%) patients had primary PCI through distal transradial access, and 140 (48%) had PPCI through conventional radial access. Exclusion criteria was absence of radial artery pulse and previous RAO. We compared clinical and procedure characteristics, access site bleeding complications, rate of Radial Artery Occlusion (RAO) and failure of primary chosen access site between two groups of STEMI patients.

Results: The success rate of the puncture for dTRA was 98.7% (150/152), and for conventional TRA 99.3% (139/140). Successful primary PCI via dTRA and conventional TRA was performed in all patients in both groups. dTRA was associated with lower rate of study clinical outcomes as rate of radial artery occlusion (dTRA: 0%, TRA 5.7%, p=0.0028) and local hematoma according to EASY score (dTRA Grade I: 15.13%, Grade II: 0%, Grade III: 0%, Grade IV: 0%, TRA: Grade I 22.9%, Grade II: 7.1%; Grade III: 0.7%, Grade IV: 0%, p=0.0009). There was no difference recorded in radial artery spasm between two access sites (dTRA: Grade I: 7.2%, Grade II: 2.7%, Grade III: 1.3%, Grade IV: 0%, TRA: Grade I 7.1%, Grade II: 2.1%, Grade III: 0.7%, Grade IV: 0%) and there was no statistically significant difference in access site crossover (dTRA: 2 patients, TRA: 1 patient). dTRA was associated with a longer access time (dTRA 38.6 sec, TRA: 36.3 sec, p=0.0077). Time of hemostasis was significantly shorter with dTRA (dTRA 30-60 min, TRA 120-150 min, p<0.0001).

Conclusion: dTRA is safe and successful in STEMI patients, when performed by experienced radial operators, with previous experience with dTRA. It is associated with lower rate of access site complications and early haemostasis in comparison with TRA.