Right versus left radial artery access for coronary procedures: an international collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis including 5 randomized trials and 3210 patients

BACKGROUND: Radial artery access is a mainstay in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease. However, there is uncertainty on the comparison of right versus left radial access for coronary procedures. We thus undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing right versus left radial access for coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures. METHODS: Pertinent studies were searched in CENTRAL, Google Scholar, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Scopus, together with international conference proceedings. Randomized trials comparing right versus left radial (or ulnar) access for coronary diagnostic or interventional procedures were included. Risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were computed to generate point estimates (95% confidence intervals). RESULTS: A total of 5 trials (3210 patients) were included. No overall significant differences were found comparing right versus left radial access in terms of procedural time (WMD=0.99 [-0.53; 2.51]min, p=0.20), contrast use (WMD=1.71 [-1.32; 4.74]mL, p=0.27), fluoroscopy time (WMD=-35.79 [-3.54; 75.12]s, p=0.07) or any major complication (RR=2.00 [0.75; 5.31], p=0.49). However, right radial access was fraught with a significantly higher risk of failure leading to cross-over to femoral access (RR=1.65 [1.18; 2.30], p=0.003) in comparison to left radial access. CONCLUSIONS: Right and left radial accesses appear largely similar in their overall procedural and clinical performance during transradial diagnostic or interventional procedures. Nonetheless, left radial access can be recommended especially during the learning curve phase to reduce femoral cross-overs

Randomized comparison of operator radiation exposure comparing transradial and transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary procedures: Rationale and design of the minimizing adverse haemorrhagic events by TRansradial access site and systemic implementation of angioX - RAdiation Dose study (RAD-MATRIX)

Background: Radiation absorbed by interventional cardiologists is a frequently under-evaluated important issue. Aim is to compare radiation dose absorbed by interventional cardiologists during percutaneous coronary procedures for acute coronary syndromes comparing transradial and transfemoral access. Methods: The randomized multicentre MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX) trial has been designed to compare the clinical outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes treated invasively according to the access site (transfemoral vs. transradial) and to the anticoagulant therapy (bivalirudin vs. heparin). Selected experienced interventional cardiologists involved in this study have been equipped with dedicated thermoluminescent dosimeters to evaluate the radiation dose absorbed during transfemoral or right transradial or left transradial access. For each access we evaluate the radiation dose absorbed at wrist, at thorax and at eye level. Consequently the operator is equipped with three sets (transfemoral, right transradial or left transradial access) of three different dosimeters (wrist, thorax and eye dosimet

ANMCO position paper on antithrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing intracoronary stenting and/or acute coronary syndromes

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a subgroup with a challenging pharmacological management. Indeed, if on the one hand, antithrombotic therapy should reduce the risk related to recurrent ischaemic events and/or stent thrombosis; on the other hand, care must be taken to avoid major bleeding events. In recent years, several trials, which overall included more than 12 000 patients, have been conducted demonstrating the safety of different therapeutic combinations of oral antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents. In the present ANMCO position paper, we propose a decision-making algorithm on antithrombotic strategies based on scientific evidence and expert consensus to be adopted in the periprocedural phase, at the time of hospital discharge, and in the long-term follow-up of patients with AF undergoing PCI with/without ACS

Distal Versus Conventional Transradial Artery Access for Coronary Catheterization in Patients With STEMI (DR-STEMI) : Rationale and Design of an International, Multicenter, Randomized Trial

Transradial access (TRA) constitutes the cornerstone for cardiac catheterization and is recommended by the multiple recent guidelines, irrespective of clinical presentation. The existing literature has evaluated distal transradial access (dTRA), as a feasible and safe approach in patients with chronic and acute coronary syndrome, excluding although patients presenting with ST- elevation myocardial infraction (STEMI).The current randomized clinical trial compares dTRA versus conventional TRA access in patients with STEMI undergoing coronary angiography and interventions regarding peri- and post-procedural characteristics.DR-STEMI is a prospective, open label, European, multicenter randomized-control trial which will include 554 patients (277 patients in each treatment arm). Patients with STEMI, will be screened on an all-comers basis for study inclusion and exclusion criteria, and those eligible will be allocated randomly (1:1), to dTRA versus TRA approach. The primary hypothesis of the study is that dTRA is non-inferior to conventional TRA regarding the required time between the puncture of the radial artery and wire crossing of the infarct-related artery (i.e., needle-to-wire time).Enrollment for the DR-STEMI trial began in May 2024, and as of April 15th, 2025, 309 patients have been enrolled in the study. Recruitment is expected to continue for approximately 12 months.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05605288

Radiation dose absorbed by operators during transradial percutaneous coronary procedures comparing different protective drapes: the RADIATION study

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare different radiation protection drapes in terms of radiation dose absorbed by operators during right or left transradial procedures. Methods and results: Patients who underwent transradial coronary procedures were randomised initially into four groups: Group 1 (no drapes), Group 2 (drape on patient's arm), Group 3 (pelvic drape), Group 4 (combined arm and pelvic drapes). Subsequently, each group was further randomised to right or left radial access. The primary endpoint was the operator radiation dose at the thorax. A total of 452 procedures were included. The use of drapes was associated with a lower radiation dose compared to no drapes (8.6 μSv [4.1-17.9] Group 1, 5.8 μSv [3.4-13] Group 2, 3.6 μSv [2.1-6.9] Group 3, 3.7 μSv [1.9-10.3] Group 4, p<0.001). Among radiation protection drapes groups the radiation dose was significantly lower in Groups 3 and 4 compared to Group 2 (p<0.008). Compared to Group 1, the dose in Group 2 was significantly lower only in right radial procedures (p<0.008) whereas in Groups 3 and 4 the dose was significantly lower in both radial accesses (p<0.008). Conclusions: The use of radiation protection drapes during transradial coronary procedures is associated with a significantly lower radiation dose to operators, with the pelvic drape more effective than the use of a single arm drape