Objectives: Previous studies show that the distal transradial approach (dTRA) is safe and effective for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the effect of dTRA on radiation exposure in the catheterization laboratory has not been characterized. The authors analyzed the available literature to compare the radiation exposure associated with dTRA vs the traditional radial approach (TRA).
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the scientific literature was conducted by using relevant terms to search the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception until October 13, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dTRA with TRA. The primary outcome was radiation exposure reported as fluoroscopy time, air kerma, or kerma-dose product. The standard mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval were used to summarize continuous variables. Random effect and meta-regression also were used for analyses.
Results: Among 484 studies identified, 7 were RCTs, with a total of 3427 patients (1712 dTRA, 1715 TRA). No difference was found between dTRA and TRA in radiation exposure quantified as fluoroscopy time (SMD -0.10 [-0.36, 0.15], P=.43) or air kerma (SMD -0.31 [-0.74, 0.13], P=.17). The overall estimate favored lower kerma-area product in the TRA (SMD 0.19 [0.08, 0.30], P=.0006). Meta-regression showed no correlation between fluoroscopy time and year of publication.
Conclusions: Compared with TRA, dTRA was associated with significantly greater radiation exposure per the kerma-area product during interventional cardiology procedures, with no differences in fluoroscopy time and air kerma.
Keywords: cardiac catheterization; distal radial approach; meta-analysis; radiation exposure; transradial approach.