• Mohammad Ebad Ur Rehman, Hafsa Arshad Azam Raja, Muhammad Osama, Aisha Kakakhail, Muhammad Hassan Waseem, Muhammad Mukhlis, Muhammad Abdullah Ali, AbideenZain UlZU, Muhammad Shoaib, Zahir Ud Din, Ammara Tahir, Muhammad Zohaib Ul Hassan, Usman Mazhar, Syed Tehseen Haider, Sajeel Saeed, and Abdulqadir J Nashwan.
• Med Princ Pract. 2025 Feb 4: 1151-15.

ObjectiveCardiac catheterization using the distal radial artery access (DRA), at the level of the anatomical snuff box post radial artery bifurcation, may be linked to a lower rate of arterial occlusion and better hemostasis. In this meta-analysis, we compare DRA versus proximal radial artery access (PRA) in cardiac catheterization or angiography.MethodsA detailed literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception till June 2024. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) were pooled for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. Random effects meta-analysis was undertaken on Revman.ResultsOur meta-analyses include 21 randomized controlled trials with 9,539 patients (DRA 4,761, PRA 4,778). DRA significantly reduced 24-hour radial artery occlusion (RAO) rates (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.40, p ≤ 0.00001), and time to hemostasis (minutes) (MD -44.46, 95% CI -50.64 to -38.92, p < 0.00001), whereas PRA was significantly superior in terms of the puncture success rate (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99, p < 0.01), the crossover rate (RR 2.89, 95% CI 2.02 to 4.15, p < 0.00001, and puncture attempts (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.00, p = 0.00001).ConclusionDRA was associated with a lower risk of occlusion and lower time to hemostasis, but required a greater number of puncture attempts and had lower success rate. Further research is required to elucidate the most optimal approach.The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.

6 keywords...

hide…