An interventional study of echo guided puncture and conventional puncture in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, sponsored by CHU Helora Jolimont. Completed at 1 site in Belgium. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-10.
Sponsored by CHU Helora Jolimont · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Over the last few years, a new approach using distal radial access had been employed for a various types of percutaneous interventions. The purpose was to further decrease the rate of vascular complications and proximal radial occlusion (RAO).
The feasibility of distal radial access in several specific groups of patients for conventional, complex coronary and non-coronary procedures was extensively studied and showed a variable rate of success between different operators, using different techniques. The main limitation is the rate of failure in cannulation that is related to the smaller diameter of the distal radial artery and the anatomic variability at the level of access site puncture. One of the solutions advocated by Hadjivassiliou et al. is the use of ultrasound-guided distal transradial acces (dTR)A, which is expected to reduce failure and complication rates.
A recent monocentric, single operator pilot study indicated a lower failure rate with ultrasound than conventional dTRA, without significant differences in puncture time and complication rate between the two approaches.
A specific ultrasound algorithm for distal radial puncture was recently developed and is currently used in our clinical daily practice, showing a 100% rate of success, in a selected group of patients that had favorable anatomic features. Imaging the distal radial artery by ultrasound could potentially be safer, select the proper candidates for this technique and increase the rate of successful cannulation. However, to date, the comparison of feasibility and safety between ultrasound-guided and conventional dTRA has not been reported.
The SOUND Distal trial is a pilot study measuring the reproducibility, rate of success, rate of complications and quality puncture measures.
The primary outcome is comparing the rate of success of dTRA cannulation between conventional and echo guided puncture. Secondary outcomes include quality puncture measures differences between the two approaches regarding patient scale pain/puncture time and number of attempts.
Other secondary end points include technic reproducibility among operators and the total rate of complications for both approaches.
This is the only study on the registry with CHU Helora Jolimont as lead sponsor.
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:
conventional puncture for TRA cannulation
Procedure: conventional puncture
echo guided puncture for TRA cannulation
Procedure: echo guided puncture
echo guided puncture for PCI
conventional puncture for PCI
first-wiring pass success rate
Time frame: from starting procedure to end of procedure
total number of attempts
The total number of attempts needed for the first-wiring pass success rate. Attempts will be defined as puncture of the artery, confirmed by the back-bleeding through the needle hub but withdrawal of the needle, after failing the wiring.
Time frame: from starting procedure to end of procedure
time to access
The time to access will be measured from the point of the first application of the operator's fingers or US probe to guide access to a successful first-wiring pass success rate. For the blind puncture group: the first application of the operator's fingers on the artery to palpate it.
Time frame: from starting procedure to end of procedure
Bleeding
Puncture site bleeding according to EASY criteria and Overall bleeding according to BARC criteria
Time frame: from starting procedure to end of procedure
Successful sheath insertion
Time frame: from starting procedure to end of procedure
crossover
Crossover to US guidance and/or Access site cross-over
Time frame: from starting procedure to end of procedure
Vascular access-site complication
Time frame: from starting procedure to end of procedure
Distal radial artery occlusion
Time frame: from starting procedure to discharge
Hemostasis time
Time frame: from starting procedure to end of procedure
Pain associated with the procedure
Time frame: from starting procedure to discharge
PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.
Plan to share: No
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get 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.