Background. In our clinical practice, conventional radial access has been employed routinely for coronary procedures. )e distal radial artery (DRA) access site has recently emerged as a novel technique in cardiac procedures. Objectives. )is study compares distal radial access to standard forearm radial access (FRA) in terms of feasibility, outcomes, and complications. Method. )is prospective, randomized trial was conducted at a single center. )e patients were chosen from An-Najah National University Hospital’s catheterization laboratory between December 2019 and November 2020. A total of 209 patients were randomized into two groups: DRA group (n � 104) and FRA group (n � 105). Results. Access was successful in 98% of patients in both the groups. )e DRA group had a longer puncture duration and a higher number of attempts (duration: 56.6 ± 61.1 s DRA vs. 20.0 ± 18.4 s FRA, p < 0.001, attempts: 1.9 ± 1.3 DRA vs. 1.2 ± 0.60 FRA, p < 0.001). Puncture-associated pain was greater in the DRA group (4 ± 2.2 DRA vs. 3 ± 2.1 FRA, p � 0.001). )ere were two radial artery occlusions in the FRA group and none in the DRA group (p � 0.139). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 26% of the DRA group and 37.1% of the FRA group. )e DRA group had significantly shorter procedure times (p � 0.006), fluoroscopy times (p � 0.002), and hemostasis times (p � 0.002). Over time, the learning curve demonstrated improved puncture duration and a decrease in the number of puncture attempts. Conclusions. DRA is a safe and practical alternative to FRA

Title

Journal of Interventional Cardiology

Publisher

Hindawi

Publisher Country

Egypt

Indexing

Scopus

Impact Factor

1.78

Publication Type

Both (Printed and Online)

Volume

2022

Year

2022

Pages

9