Objectives: We sought to compare the procedural and clinical performance of dual- versus single-catheter strategy for transradial coronary angiography.
Background: The radial artery (RA) is recommended as the vascular access of choice in patients undergoing coronary angiography and intervention. The procedural and clinical performance of dual- versus single-catheter strategy in patients undergoing transradial coronary angiography remains a matter of debate.
Methods: This is a study-level meta-analysis of randomized trials. The primary outcome was procedure time. The main secondary outcome was fluoroscopy time. Other outcomes of interest were contrast volume, crossover to other catheter strategy and RA spasm.
Results: A total of 2,062 patients (978 randomly assigned to dual-catheter and 1,084 to single-catheter strategy) included in seven trials were available for the quantitative synthesis. A dual-catheter strategy was associated with procedure time (standardized mean difference [95% confidence intervals (CI)], 0.55 [-0.69, 1.78]; p = .32), fluoroscopy time (-0.36 [-2.39, 1.67]; p = .68) and contrast volume (-0.93 [-3.79, 1.94]; p = .44) comparable to a single-catheter strategy. The risk for crossover was lower (risk ratio [95% CI], 0.14 [0.03, 0.70]; p = .025) while the risk for RA spasm was higher (1.81 [1.54, 2.12]; p < .001) among patients assigned to dual- versus single-catheter strategy.
Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides evidence for a comparable procedural performance of either dual- or single-catheter strategy for transradial coronary angiography. The fewer crossovers with dual-catheter strategy occur at the expense of more frequent radial artery spasm.
Keywords: coronary angiography; dual catheter; meta-analysis; randomized trial; single catheter.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.