Background Distal radial artery access(DRA)has emerged as an alternative to conventional transradial access(TRA)for percutaneous coronary interventions(PCI).This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of DRA ve...Background Distal radial artery access(DRA)has emerged as an alternative to conventional transradial access(TRA)for percutaneous coronary interventions(PCI).This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of DRA versus TRA.Methods A total of 873 participants were enrolled,divided into the DRA group(n=236)and the TRA group(n=637).The primary endpoint was the success rate of access puncture.Secondary endpoints included procedural efficiency,patient comfort,and complication rates.Baseline characteristics,procedural data,and outcomes were analyzed and compared between the two groups.Results The success rates for access puncture showed no significant statistical difference between the DRA and TRA groups.However,the DRA group required more puncture attempts.DRA showed significant advantages,including shorter hemostasis times,reduced access puncture and postprocedural pain,and lower incidences of radial artery occlusion(2.1%vs.6.1%,P=0.043)and hematoma(1.7%vs.5.2%,P=0.037).Conclusions DRA is a viable alternative to TRA for performing PCI,offering comparable success rates and procedural efficiency with improved patient comfort and reduced complications.展开更多
基金supported by the Wuzhou Science and Technology Project(No.202102094)。
文摘Background Distal radial artery access(DRA)has emerged as an alternative to conventional transradial access(TRA)for percutaneous coronary interventions(PCI).This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of DRA versus TRA.Methods A total of 873 participants were enrolled,divided into the DRA group(n=236)and the TRA group(n=637).The primary endpoint was the success rate of access puncture.Secondary endpoints included procedural efficiency,patient comfort,and complication rates.Baseline characteristics,procedural data,and outcomes were analyzed and compared between the two groups.Results The success rates for access puncture showed no significant statistical difference between the DRA and TRA groups.However,the DRA group required more puncture attempts.DRA showed significant advantages,including shorter hemostasis times,reduced access puncture and postprocedural pain,and lower incidences of radial artery occlusion(2.1%vs.6.1%,P=0.043)and hematoma(1.7%vs.5.2%,P=0.037).Conclusions DRA is a viable alternative to TRA for performing PCI,offering comparable success rates and procedural efficiency with improved patient comfort and reduced complications.
