Twelve-month clinical outcomes of transradial coronary artery intervention: comparison of the right and left radial artery approach

Introduction. Trans-radial intervention has several advantages such as reduction of bleeding risk, improvement of patients’ convenience, and immediate ambulation as compared with the trans-femoral intervention. In the trans-radial intervention, there are some anatomical and technical differences between right and left radial approach. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the choice of the right or left radial approach on 12-month clinical outcomes in patients undergoing the trans-radial intervention. Methods. A total of 506 consecutive patients who underwent trans-radial intervention were enrolled from Nov 2013 to Oct 2014 in the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Trans-radial Intervention Registry. The patients were divided into two groups; a right radial approach group and a left radial approach group. To adjust potential confounders, propensity score-matched analysis was performed using the logistic regression model. Results. After propensity score matching, the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were balanced between the two groups. However, contrast volumes during the procedure were larger and fluoroscopic times were longer in the right radial approach group, whereas procedure times were longer in the left approach group. Procedural and in-hospital complications were similar between the two groups. The cumulative clinical outcomes up to 12 months, including mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, stent thrombosis, and MACE, were similar between the two groups. Conclusions. In this study, despite the procedural efficacy including procedural time and contrast volume were increased in the right artery approach, however, 12-month cumulative clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups.