Advertisement

Importance of measurement of the diameter of the distal radial artery in a distal radial approach from the anatomical snuffbox before coronary catheterization

  • Kenji Norimatsu
  • Takaaki Kusumoto
  • Keisuke Yoshimoto
  • Mitoshi Tsukamoto
  • Takashi Kuwano
  • Hiroaki Nishikawa
  • Toshiyuki Matsumura
  • Shin-ichiro MiuraEmail author
Original Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Coronary catheterization by a distal radial approach at the site of the anatomical snuffbox has recently been reported to be both safe and useful. No data are available on the diameter of the distal radial artery (DRA) in Japan, and it is unclear whether the DRA is large enough to withstand the insertion of a conventional sheath by a traditional radial approach. We enrolled 142 patients who underwent coronary catheterization and evaluated the vessel diameter of the DRA using ultrasound. The vessel diameter of the DRA in the anatomical snuffbox (2.6 ± 0.5 mm) was significantly smaller than that of the proximal radial artery (PRA) at the conventional puncture site (3.1 ± 0.4 mm). The difference in vessel diameter between the DRA and PRA was 0.5 ± 0.4 mm, and the DRA/PRA ratio was 0.8 ± 0.1. Although the vessel diameter of the DRA was positively correlated with that of the PRA (r = 0.66, p < 0.0001), in some cases the DRA was extremely small compared to the PRA. When the vessel diameter of the DRA is smaller than the outer diameter of the sheath scheduled for use, we should puncture the PRA at the outset. We could perform coronary catheterization by a distal radial approach without major bleeding or adverse events, and there was no radial artery occlusion at the site of the anatomical snuffbox or the forearm. For coronary catheterization by a distal radial approach, we should evaluate whether there is sufficient vessel diameter using ultrasound before the procedure. In addition, this approach can be an effective option from the viewpoint of radial artery preservation.

Keywords

Anatomical snuffbox Distal radial artery Radial approach Coronary catheterization Adverse events 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kiemeneij F (2017) Left distal transradial access in the anatomical snuffbox for coronary angiography (ldTRA) and interventions (ldTRI). EuroIntervention 13:851–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee JW, Park SW, Son JW, Ahn SG, Lee SH (2018) Real-world experience of the left distal transradial approach for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective observational study (LeDRA). Eurointervention 14:e995–e1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Naito T, Sawaoka T, Sasaki K, Iida K, Sakuraba S, Yokohama K, Sato H, Soma M, Okamura E, Harada T, Yoshimachi F (2019) Evaluation of the diameter of the distal radial artery at the anatomical snuff box using ultrasound in Japanese patients. Cardiovasc Interv Ther.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-018-00567-5 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaledin AL, Kochanov IN, Seletskiĭ SS, Arkharov IV, Burak TIA, Kozlov KL (2014) Peculiarities of arterial access in endovascular surgery in elderly patients. Adv Gerontol 27:115–119 (Article in Russian) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, Slagboom T, van der Wieken R (1997) A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study. J Am Coll Cardiol 29:1269–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai GG, de Benedictis ML, Rigattieri S, Turri M, Anselmi M, Vassanelli C, Zardini P, Louvard Y, Hamon M (2004) Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures; systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 44:349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamon M, Pristipino C, Di Mario C, Nolan J, Ludwig J, Tubaro M, Sabate M, Mauri-Ferré J, Huber K, Niemelä K, Haude M, Wijns W, Dudek D, Fajadet J, Kiemeneij F, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions; Working Group on Acute Cardiac Care of the European Society of Cardiology; Working Group on Thrombosis on the European Society of Cardiology (2013) Consensus document on the radial approach in percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: position paper by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology. EuroIntervention 8:1242–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, Niemelä K, Xavier D, Widimsky P, Budaj A, Niemelä M, Valentin V, Lewis BS, Avezum A, Steg PG, Rao SV, Gao P, Afzal R, Joyner CD, Chrolavicius S, Mehta SR, RIVAL trial group (2011) Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 377:1409–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, Zaro T, Rubartelli P, Briguori C, Andò G, Repetto A, Limbruno U, Cortese B, Sganzerla P, Lupi A, Galli M, Colangelo S, Ierna S, Ausiello A, Presbitero P, Sardella G, Varbella F, Esposito G, Santarelli A, Tresoldi S, Nazzaro M, Zingarelli A, de Cesare N, Rigattieri S, Tosi P, Palmieri C, Brugaletta S, Rao SV, Heg D, Rothenbühler M, Vranckx P, Jüni P, Investigators MATRIX (2015) Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 385:2465–2476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aminian A, Saito S, Takahashi A, Bernat I, Jobe RL, Kajiya T, Gilchrist IC, Louvard Y, Kiemeneij F, Van Royen N, Yamazaki S, Matsukage T, Rao SV (2017) Comparison of a new slender 6 Fr sheath with a standard 5 Fr sheath for transradial coronary angiography and intervention: RAP and BEAT (Radial Artery Patency and Bleeding, Efficacy, Adverse evenT), a randomised multicentre trial. EuroIntervention 13:e549–e556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gasparini GL, Garbo R, Gagnor A, Oreglia J, Mazzarotto P (2018) First prospective multicenter experience with left distal transradial approach for coronary chronic total occlusion interventions using a 7-french glidesheath slender. EuroIntervention.  https://doi.org/10.4244/eij-d-18-00648 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saito S, Ikei H, Hosokawa G, Tanaka S (1999) Influence of the ratio between radial artery inner diameter and sheath outer diameter on radial artery flow after transradial coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 46:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buturak A, Gorgulu S, Norgaz T, Voyvoda N, Sahingoz Y, Degirmencioglu A, Dagdelen S (2014) The long-term incidence and predictors of radial artery occlusion following a transradial coronary procedure. Cardiol J 21:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garg N, Madan BK, Khanna R, Sinha A, Kapoor A, Tewari S, Kumar S, Goel PK (2015) Incidence and predictors of radial artery occlusion after transradial coronary angioplasty: Doppler-guided follow-up study. J Invasive Cardiol 27:106–112Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenji Norimatsu
    • 1
  • Takaaki Kusumoto
    • 1
  • Keisuke Yoshimoto
    • 2
  • Mitoshi Tsukamoto
    • 3
  • Takashi Kuwano
    • 4
  • Hiroaki Nishikawa
    • 5
  • Toshiyuki Matsumura
    • 6
  • Shin-ichiro Miura
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of CardiologyIzumi General Medical CenterIzumiJapan
  2. 2.Department of Clinical EngineeringIzumi General Medical CenterIzumiJapan
  3. 3.Department of Laboratory MedicineIzumi General Medical CenterIzumiJapan
  4. 4.Department of CardiologyFukuoka University School of MedicineFukuokaJapan
  5. 5.Department of CardiologyFukuoka University Nishijin HospitalFukuokaJapan
  6. 6.Department of CardiologyKumamoto Rousai HospitalYatsushiroJapan

Personalised recommendations