Radial artery occlusion after primary percutaneous coronary interventions performed using different radial approaches

Aim . The analyses of radial artery patency during hospitalisation in patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary interventions were performed using three options of radial approaches, i.e. traditional, classical and dorsopalmar distal radial approaches. Methods . Patients (n = 178) with acute coronary syndrome on whom endovascular procedure by the traditional and two options of distal radial approach were performed met the entry criteria. The classical distal radial approach was performed within an anatomic snuffbox in 65 patients (36.5%), and the dorsopalmar type was performed in 29 patients (16.3%); the traditional radial approach was performed in 84 patients (47.2%). On completion of the percutaneous coronary interventions and final radial artery angiography, hemostasis was performed with bandage application for 6 h. From  the 5 th to the 7 th day after intervention, examination, palpation and ultrasound duplex scan were performed in every patient. Results . Examination, palpation and ultrasound duplex scan performed from the 5th to 7th day after intervention revealed 3 cases (1.7%) of forearm radial artery occlusion (high type). All the 3 cases were in the traditional radial approach group. Access side radial artery occlusion (at the anatomical snuffbox and the dorsum of the plant [local type]) with saved blood supplement on the forearm was registered in the classical distal radial approach group in 4 cases (2.3%). There were no cases of access side radial artery occlusion in the dorsopalmar group. Conclusion . The use of the distal radial approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome definitely reduces the risk of radial artery occlusion of the forearm, whereas the dorsopalmar distal radial approach can be considered as a basic approach. Received 11 May 2020. Revised 31 May 2020. Accepted 3 June 2020. Funding: The study did not have sponsorship. Conflict of interest: Authors declare no conflict of interest. Author contributions Conception and design: S.P. Semitko, R.V. Akhramovich Data collection and analysis: R.V. Akhramovich, I.S. Melnichenko Drafting the article: R.V. Akhramovich Critical revision of the article: S.P. Semitko Final approval of the version to be published: R.V. Akhramovich, S.P. Semitko, A.V. Azarov, I.S. Melnichenko, A.I. Analeev, I.E. Chernyisheva, A.A. Tretyakov, D.G. Ioseliani