The technical features of the diagnosis or treatment of coronary artery disease through the distal radial artery approach at the anatomical snuffbox compared with the conventional radial artery approach

Abstract

Abstract Background To compare the surgical effects of coronary intervention through the transradial intervention (TRI) versus distal transradial intervention (dTRI) approach. Methods From September 2020 to April 2021, 302 patients undergoing coronary artery angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention in our hospital were retrospectively included. Patients were divided into the TRI group and dTRI group with 151 cases in each group. The technique features, lesion features, and cannulation process were compared between the two groups. Results The number of patients who underwent CAG in the dTRI group (35.1%) was significantly greater compared with the TRI group (12.6%) (P 0.05). RAD at the puncture site was a predictor of the overall cannulation success rate with an AUC of 0.747 (95% CI 0.663–0.860; P < 0.05). Conclusions Despite a steep learning curve, the dTRI approach had a shorter hemostasis time, reduced RAO rates, and notable preliminary safety results compared with the TRI approach. The dTRI approach can be used as a supplemental method to the TRI approach.

Keywords

• Percutaneous coronary intervention
• Distal transradial intervention approach
• Transradial intervention approach
• Radial artery occlusion