RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Older patients are at a higher risk of access site complications and bleeding. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis have highlighted the benefits of distal over proximal transradial access (mainly, lower rates of radial artery occlusion and faster hemostasis). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of distal transradial access (dTRA) for routine coronary procedures in older patients compared with non-older patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a large and real-world sample of 5524 consecutive all-comers patients who underwent coronary procedures via dTRA were included in the DISTRACTION registry. RESULTS: In the older patients (greater than or equal to 65 years) group (n = 2594, 47%), there were higher rates of hypertension (83% vs 71.1%; P less than .0001), diabetes (45.1% vs 34.7%; P less than .0001), previous stroke (2.9% vs 2%; P=.0425), chronic heart failure (9.2% vs 7.1%; P=.0040), severe aortic valvar disease (4.2% vs 2.9%; P=.0070), chronic kidney disease stages 3 and 4 (8.1% vs 3.1%; P less than .0001), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (27.2% vs 24.5%; P=.0253), previous coronary artery bypass grafting (5.1% vs 2.2%; P less than .0001), cardiogenic shock at presentation (1.3% vs 0.4%; P=.0003), rotational atherectomy (0.7% vs 0.2%; P=.0050), and left main percutaneous coronary intervention (2.7% vs 1.5%; P=.0033). No significant differences were observed in the rates of access site crossovers. No major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events directly related to dTRA, no hand/thumb dysfunction or ischemia after any procedure, and no access site-related hematomas (early discharge after transradial stenting of coronary arteries greater than or equal to 2) were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Despite more comorbidities, more complex coronary disease, and more challenging presentation, the adoption of dTRA as the default approach for routine coronary procedures in older patients, by proficient operators, appears to be safe and feasible.
