Purpose: Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is one of the common complications after coronary intervention via the conventional radial artery approach. The purpose of the study was to explore the safety and feasibility of retrograde recanalization of the occluded radial artery via a distal radial artery (DRA) approach. Methods: Combined with the practice of our centre and a literature review, we summarized the procedure of retrograde recanalization of RAO, success rate, and complications. Results: A total of 14 of 15 patients with 15 pieces of occluded radial arteries were successfully recanalized via the DRA in our centre. In the 15 occluded vessels, 11 vessels (73.3%) had total occlusion and 4 vessels (26.7%) had functional occlusion. Four of 15 occluded vessels were acute occlusions. Two acute RAOs were only treated with aspiration via sheath, 11 RAOs with balloon angioplasty, and 2 RAOs with both, respectively. In 6 patients, cardiac catheterization was carried out via the DRA after recanalizing the RAO. A total of 10 studies reporting the results of recanalization of RAO via the DRA were systematically retrieved in the present study. In 3 case series, the number of cases was more than 5, and the success rate of recanalization was more than 85.7%. Two studies reported complications, including dissection in one case, hematoma in 2 cases, and pain in the forearm during angioplasty. Conclusions: Recanalization of the occluded radial artery via the DRA was safe and effective. When repeat cardiac catheterization was required, recanalization of the RAO and subsequent coronary angiography or intervention through the ipsilateral radial artery approach was feasible.

The study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of coronary intervention via distal transradial access (dTRA) in patients with low body mass index (BMI). A total of 67 patients with low BMI who underwent coronary intervention, comprising 29 patients via dTRA and 38 patients via conventional transradial access (cTRA), were retrospectively included. There was no significant difference in the puncture success rate between the two groups (dTRA 96.6%, cTRA 97.4%, P = 0.846 ). Compared with the cTRA group, the success rate of one-needle puncture in the dTRA group was lower (51.7% vs. 81.6%, P = 0.020 ). The compression haemostasis time in the dTRA group was shorter than that in the cTRA group ( P   <   0.001 ). However, the incidence of radial artery occlusion was lower in the dTRA group than in the cTRA group (4.0% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.007 ). In conclusion, coronary intervention via dTRA was safe and effective in patients with low BMI.

Background Distal transradial access (dTRA) has been suggested to have great advantages over cTRA. However, there is a lack of preliminary data on dTRA in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To explore the feasibility and safety of distal transradial access in patients with acute chest pain. Methods A total of 1269 patients complaining of acute chest pain in our emergency department from January 2020 to February 2022 were retrospectively included. The patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into the conventional transradial access (cTRA) group (n = 238) and the dTRA group (n = 158). Propensity score matching was used to minimize the baseline differences. Results The cannulation success rate in the dTRA group was significantly lower than that in the cTRA group (87.41% vs. 94.81%, p < 0.05). No significant differences in the puncture time and total procedure time were noted between the two groups (p > 0.05). Compared with the cTRA group, the hemostasis duration was significantly shorter [4(4, 4) h vs. 10(8, 10) h, p < 0.001) and the incidence of minor bleeding (BARC Type I and II) was significantly lower in the dTRA group than that in the cTRA group (0.85% vs. 5.48%, p = 0.045). Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion was observed in six patients (5.83%) in the cTRA group and one patient (1.14%) in the dTRA group (p = 0.126). The subgroup analysis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) showed no significant differences in the puncture time, D-to-B time or total procedure time between the two groups. Conclusions The dTRA for emergency CAG or PCI has an acceptable success rate and puncture time, a shorter hemostasis time, and a downward trend in RAO rate compared to the cTRA. The dTRA did not increase the D-to-B time in emergency coronary interventions in STEMI patients. On the contrary, a low incidence of RAO by the dTRA created an opportunity for future coronary interventions in non-culprit vessels in the same access. Trial registration Retrospectively registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registry number: ChiCTR2200061104, date of registration: June 15, 2022).