Distal versus conventional transradial access for diagnostic cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Distal transradial artery access (dTRA) has received increasing consideration for performing diagnostic cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures. In this meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dTRA compared to conventional transradial access (cTRA) for cerebral angiography and neurointerventions. Method A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on studies investigating outcomes of dTRA and cTRA in neurointerventions. The primary outcome was technical success rates. Secondary outcomes included access site complication rates, crossover rates to alternative vessels, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. The random effects model was used to calculate the mean difference (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (Cl). Results Eight retrospective observational studies with a total of 1477 patients who underwent 1175 diagnostic cerebral angiography and 516 neurointerventional procedures using 546 dTRA and 1164 cTRA approaches were included in our meta-analysis. The technical success rate was similar between dTRA and cTRA groups (95.8% vs 91.4%; OR:1.65; 95% Cl: 0.52 to 5.22; P = 0.40). Similarly, no difference was seen in dTRA and cTRA regarding access site complications (2% vs 1.4%; OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.47 to 3.61; P = 0.61) and access site crossover (2.1% vs 5.3%; OR: 0.55; 95% Cl: 0.28 to 1.05; P = 0.07). After resolving heterogeneity among included studies, dTRA was associated with a shorter fluoroscopy time (MD: −0.91 min; 95% CI: −1.74 to −0.09; P = 0.03) and lower contrast volume (MD: −8.32 mL; 95% CI = −14.7 to −1.94; P = 0.011). Conclusion Our findings suggest that the dTRA approach is a safe and effective alternative to the cTRA approach in patients undergoing cerebral angiography and neurointerventions.