An interventional study of coronary angiography in Radial Artery Access and Distal Radial Artery Access (dTRA), sponsored by University Hospital of Patras. Recruiting at 1 site in Greece. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-06-01.
Sponsored by University Hospital of Patras · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
Comparative study of ultrasound-guided distal radial access versus conventional radial access regarding the incidence of vascular access crossover.
Current European and American guidelines issued by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) recommend transradial access (TRA) as the preferred access route for cardiac catheterization in both acute and chronic coronary syndromes, as well as in complex coronary interventions. Compared with transfemoral access, transradial access has demonstrated significant benefits regarding vascular complications, major bleeding, mortality, and earlier mobilization and discharge of patients.
In recent years, access through the distal segment of the radial artery in the anatomical snuffbox has emerged as a technique with highly beneficial characteristics comparable to conventional radial access, while also offering additional advantages. The ANGIE study demonstrated that distal radial access was associated with a statistically significant reduction in radial artery occlusion compared with conventional radial puncture. Puncture of the distal radial artery preserves antegrade blood flow in the forearm during hemostatic compression, thereby reducing the risk of arterial occlusion.
Existing literature Although the benefit of distal radial access in preventing radial artery occlusion has now been established, the same does not apply to crossover incidence, namely the need to change to an alternative vascular access site because the intervention cannot be completed through the initially selected access.
Several studies have shown higher crossover rates with distal radial access compared with conventional radial access. In the study by Koutouzis et al., distal radial access failed more often, with a crossover incidence of 30% versus 2% in the conventional radial group. Similar findings were reported in the DAPRAO study, the ANGIE trial, the DISCO RADIAL trial, the CONDITION trial, and observational studies and meta-analyses. Overall, published evidence consistently suggests that distal radial access is associated with a higher likelihood of crossover than conventional radial access when performed without ultrasound guidance.
Aim and originality of the study A common characteristic of all the above studies is that the comparison between the two access techniques was performed using anatomical guidance rather than ultrasound guidance.
As noted in the SCAI recommendations, failure to catheterize the radial artery is the leading cause of transradial procedural failure. The radial artery is relatively small in diameter, may be calcified, or may present anatomical variations that complicate vascular access. Two-dimensional ultrasound may therefore be a valuable tool for pre-procedural planning and real-time guidance.
A large meta-analysis of 12 studies including 2,432 adults undergoing conventional transradial access under ultrasound guidance showed improved first-pass success rates and reduced access failure rates. Similarly, ultrasound-guided distal radial access significantly increased successful intervention rates in the study by Mori et al. Consequently, the purpose of the present study is to demonstrate ultrasound guidance as a technique capable of increasing successful completion rates for both vascular approaches, while establishing distal radial access as a non-inferior alternative to conventional radial access regarding crossover probability.
Methodology The study will be conducted after approval by the Scientific Council and the Ethics and Deontology Committee of the University General Hospital of Patras.
This is a prospective, randomized, single-center, non-inferiority clinical study that will be carried out in the Hemodynamic Laboratory of the Cardiology Department of the University General Hospital of Patras in collaboration with the Radiology Department.
Study population The control group will undergo coronary angiography through conventional transradial access (TRA). The intervention group will undergo coronary angiography through distal radial access (DRA). Radial artery puncture will be performed exclusively under ultrasound guidance. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to DRA or TRA.
Arterial access procedure:
The procedure begins with sterilization of both potential puncture sites regardless of randomization group. Conventional radial artery puncture is performed approximately 2-3 cm proximal to the styloid process. In patients randomized to distal transradial access (dTRA), puncture is performed more distally in the anatomical snuffbox at an angle of 30-80 degrees.
The interventional cardiologist uses the ultrasound probe exclusively, covered with a sterile protective sheath, to identify anatomical landmarks, define a safe puncture site, and avoid injury to adjacent structures. Local lidocaine infiltration is then performed under ultrasound guidance. The intravascular position of the needle is confirmed by ultrasound visualization and continuous blood flow.
After successful puncture of the radial artery, a 6 French sheath is inserted using the Seldinger technique. Subsequently, 50 IU/kg unfractionated heparin is administered (100 IU/kg total dose in case of angioplasty), together with nitroglycerin according to standard practice.
Hemostasis procedure After completion of the procedure, a TR band device is used. Hemostasis is assessed at 0,5 ,1, 2, and 3 hours after placement of the device, and if hemostasis is not achieved within this timeframe, manual compression is applied.
Data collection
For all participants, the following will be recorded:
Secondary endpoints
University Hospital of Patras is the lead sponsor of 43 studies on the registry; 11 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
ultrasound guided distal radial artery acess for coronary angiography
Procedure: coronary angiography
ultrasound guided conventional transradial acess for coronary angiography
Procedure: coronary angiography
Diagnostic and if indicated percutaneus coronary intervention during coronary angiography
Also known as: pci
crossover
Need for a different access to begin the procedure other than the one specified in the patient's arm
Time frame: Periprocedural.Up to 5 mins will be allowed before giving up on designated method to obtain access
Arterial vasospasm
Time frame: periprocedural
hemostasis
Time from procedure's end until removal of hemostatic device
Time frame: Will be checked at set intervals of 30-60-90-180 mins post procedure
Time until pci
Time from first needle puncture until pci (percutaneous coronary intervention) has been completed (If needed)
Time frame: periprocedural
radial artery occlusion
ultrasound evaluation of radial artery patency after end of hemostasis
Time frame: 30 days post procedure
hematoma
using EASY classification
Time frame: pre discharge , post procedure
Time required for sheath insertion
Time required from first puncture until sheath is sucessfully introduced into the artery
Time frame: periprocedural
Total procedure time
Time from first needle puncture until procedure end (hemostatic device placement signals the end )
Time frame: periprocedural
Coronary angiography time
Time from first needle puncture until all 3 coronary arteries have been sufficiently depicted
Time frame: periprocedural
Plan to share: Undecided — We plan to share data with other researchers only if they're formally requested and cited afterwards
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Congenital chloride diarrhea
University Hospital of Patras