Radial Artery AccessUS-DRASTICNCT07617259
UltraSound Guided Distal Radial Artery vS Conventional Transradial Access for Interventional Coronary Angiography
A study testing coronary angiography in people with Radial Artery Access and Distal Radial Artery Access (dTRA), run by University Hospital of Patras at 1 site in Greece.
Trial summary
Comparative study of ultrasound-guided distal radial access versus conventional radial access regarding the incidence of vascular access crossover. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Radial Artery Access, Distal Radial Artery Access (dTRA)
- What is being tested?
- coronary angiography
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,400 participants
- Where
- 1 siteGreece
- Study dates
- 12 May 2026to 1 Nov 2028
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Indication for Invasive coronary angiography
Who cannot join
- STEMI
- Renal replacement therapy patients
- Serious dermal or bone deformity of the radiocarpal joint
- Shock
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Grigorios Tsigas, assistant professor contact
Greece1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
University Hospital of Patras
Pátrai
Grigorios Tsigas, +30 6974466662, gregtsig@hotmail.com
About this study
Comparative study of ultrasound-guided distal radial access versus conventional radial access regarding the incidence of vascular access crossover.
Read the detailed description
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:
- Demographic characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, medical history, and chronic medication
- Body weight and body mass index (BMI)
- Reason for catheterization (STEMI, NSTEMI, unstable angina, stable coronary artery disease, suspected coronary artery disease, or valvular disease)
- Periprocedural antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy
- Laboratory tests: Ht, Hgb, PLT, WBC, Urea, Creatinine
- Allen test and quality of radial artery pulse
- Total puncture attempts and total time to achieve vascular access
- Fluoroscopy duration, total angiography time, and contrast volume
- Number and type of diagnostic catheters used
- Type of hemostatic device and duration of hemostasis Primary endpoint Need for vascular access crossover due to failed puncture, failed wire or sheath advancement, or inability to complete the procedure through the initial vascular access. The exact reason for crossover will be recorded.
Secondary endpoints
- Local hematoma classified according to EASY criteria
- Arterial spasm severity
- Sheath placement time
- Total procedural time
- Time from puncture initiation until completion of coronary angiography before PCI
- Time required for diagnostic coronary angiography after sheath placement
- Time required until PCI completion
- Total fluoroscopy time
- Total DAP
- Air Kerma
- Hemostasis duration
- Vascular complications (arterial perforation, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula)
- Distal radial artery occlusion before discharge
- Bleeding events according to BARC classification
- Being tested
- coronary angiography
- Keywords
- distal radial artery, dra, coronary, ultrasound, distal, dtra, u/s, ultrasound guided, ICA, coronary angiography
- Medical subject headings
- Congenital chloride diarrhea
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
coronary angiographyProcedure or surgery
Also called pci
Diagnostic and if indicated percutaneus coronary intervention during coronary angiography
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| ultrasound guided distal radial artery | Active comparator | ultrasound guided distal radial artery acess for coronary angiography Receives: Procedure: coronary angiography |
| ultrasound guided conventional transradial acess | Active comparator | ultrasound guided conventional transradial acess for coronary angiography Receives: Procedure: coronary angiography |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
crossover
Need for a different access to begin the procedure other than the one specified in the patient's arm
Measured: Periprocedural.Up to 5 mins will be allowed before giving up on designated method to obtain access
Secondary outcomes (8)
Arterial vasospasm
Measured: periprocedural
hemostasis
Time from procedure's end until removal of hemostatic device
Measured: 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)
Measured: periprocedural
radial artery occlusion
ultrasound evaluation of radial artery patency after end of hemostasis
Measured: 30 days post procedure
hematoma
using EASY classification
Measured: pre discharge , post procedure
Time required for sheath insertion
Time required from first puncture until sheath is sucessfully introduced into the artery
Measured: periprocedural
Total procedure time
Time from first needle puncture until procedure end (hemostatic device placement signals the end )
Measured: periprocedural
Coronary angiography time
Time from first needle puncture until all 3 coronary arteries have been sufficiently depicted
Measured: periprocedural
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Jun 2026
- Study start12 May 2026
- Primary completion12 May 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Nov 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (16)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Radial Artery AccessStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Care provider, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 1,400 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital of Patras
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Grigorios Tsigkas, University Hospital of Patras
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07617259
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2/22.01.2026
- Acronym
- US-DRASTIC
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 12 May 2026
- Last updated
- 1 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: We plan to share data with other researchers only if they're formally requested and cited afterwards
Publications
Mori S, Hirano K, Yamawaki M, Kobayashi N, Sakamoto Y, Tsutsumi M, Honda Y, Makino K, Shirai S, Ito Y. A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention. J Interv Cardiol. 2020 Sep 8;2020:7342732. doi: 10.1155/2020/7342732. eCollection 2020.
PubMed 32982609Moussa Pacha H, Alahdab F, Al-Khadra Y, Idris A, Rabbat F, Darmoch F, Soud M, Zaitoun A, Kaki A, Rao SV, Kwok CS, Mamas MA, Alraies MC. Ultrasound-guided versus palpation-guided radial artery catheterization in adult population: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J. 2018 Oct;204:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.06.007. Epub 2018 Jun 19.
PubMed 30077047Ferrante G, Condello F, Rao SV, Maurina M, Jolly S, Stefanini GG, Reimers B, Condorelli G, Lefevre T, Pancholy SB, Bertrand O, Valgimigli M. Distal vs Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Angiography and/or Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Nov 28;15(22):2297-2311. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.09.006.
PubMed 36423974Hamandi M, Saad M, Hasan R, Megaly M, Abbott JD, Dib C, Szerlip M, Potluri S, Lotfi A, Kiemeneij F, Al-Azizi KM. Distal Versus Conventional Transradial Artery Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: A Meta-Analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Oct;21(10):1209-1213. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.03.020. Epub 2020 Mar 14.
PubMed 32321695Feng C, Zong B, Liu Y, Chen M, Li S, Xu D, Han B. Comparison of distal transradial approach versus conventional transradial approach for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: A prospective observational study. Heliyon. 2023 Jun 14;9(6):e17150. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17150. eCollection 2023 Jun.
PubMed 37360091Chen T, Li L, Li F, Lu W, Shi G, Li W, Yang A, Huang H, Xiao J, Zhang Q, Gu J, Xue S, Zhang L, Li L, Xu L, Ji R, Wang H, Cai G. Comparison of long-term radial artery occlusion via distal vs. conventional transradial access (CONDITION): a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2024 Feb 8;22(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03281-7.
PubMed 38331793Aminian A, Sgueglia GA, Wiemer M, Kefer J, Gasparini GL, Ruzsa Z, van Leeuwen MAH, Ungureanu C, Leibundgut G, Vandeloo B, Kedev S, Bernat I, Ratib K, Iglesias JF, Al Hage E, Posteraro GA, Pascut D, Maes F, Regazzoli D, Kakonyi K, Meijers TA, Colletti G, Krivoshei L, Lochy S, Zafirovska B, Horak D, Nolan J, Degrauwe S, Tobita K, Saito S. Distal Versus Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: The DISCO RADIAL Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Jun 27;15(12):1191-1201. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.04.032. Epub 2022 May 17.
PubMed 35595673Eid-Lidt G, Rivera Rodriguez A, Jimenez Castellanos J, Farjat Pasos JI, Estrada Lopez KE, Gaspar J. Distal Radial Artery Approach to Prevent Radial Artery Occlusion Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Feb 22;14(4):378-385. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.013.
PubMed 33602433Koutouzis M, Kontopodis E, Tassopoulos A, Tsiafoutis I, Katsanou K, Rigatou A, Didagelos M, Andreou K, Lazaris E, Oikonomidis N, Maniotis C, Ziakas A. Distal Versus Traditional Radial Approach for Coronary Angiography. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019 Aug;20(8):678-680. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.09.018. Epub 2018 Oct 2.
PubMed 30314833Roh JH, Lee JH. Distal Radial Approach through the Anatomical Snuff Box for Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Korean Circ J. 2018 Dec;48(12):1131-1134. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2018.0293. No abstract available.
PubMed 30403016Tsigkas G, Papageorgiou A, Moulias A, Kalogeropoulos AP, Papageorgopoulou C, Apostolos A, Papanikolaou A, Vasilagkos G, Davlouros P. Distal or Traditional Transradial Access Site for Coronary Procedures: A Single-Center, Randomized Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Jan 10;15(1):22-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.09.037. Epub 2021 Dec 15.
PubMed 34922888Rashid M, Kwok CS, Pancholy S, Chugh S, Kedev SA, Bernat I, Ratib K, Large A, Fraser D, Nolan J, Mamas MA. Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jan 25;5(1):e002686. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.002686.
PubMed 26811162Valgimigli M, Landi A. Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Procedures: Old Certainties, Novel Challenges, and Future Horizons. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Jan 10;15(1):33-38. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.10.032. Epub 2021 Dec 15. No abstract available.
PubMed 34922887Shroff AR, Gulati R, Drachman DE, Feldman DN, Gilchrist IC, Kaul P, Lata K, Pancholy SB, Panetta CJ, Seto AH, Speiser B, Steinberg DH, Vidovich MI, Woody WW, Rao SV. SCAI expert consensus statement update on best practices for transradial angiography and intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Feb;95(2):245-252. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28672. Epub 2019 Dec 27.
PubMed 31880380Mason PJ, Shah B, Tamis-Holland JE, Bittl JA, Cohen MG, Safirstein J, Drachman DE, Valle JA, Rhodes D, Gilchrist IC; American Heart Association Interventional Cardiovascular Care Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; and Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine. An Update on Radial Artery Access and Best Practices for Transradial Coronary Angiography and Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep;11(9):e000035. doi: 10.1161/HCV.0000000000000035.
PubMed 30354598
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- UltraSound Guided Distal Radial Artery vS Conventional Transradial Access for Interventional Coronary Angiography
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07617259
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- US-DRASTIC / 2/22.01.2026
- Keywords
- distal radial artery, dra, coronary, ultrasound, distal, dtra, u/s, ultrasound guided
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 1,400 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital of PatrasUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 12 May 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 12 May 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Nov 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 1 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Comparative study of ultrasound-guided distal radial access versus conventional radial access regarding the incidence of vascular access crossover.
Detailed description
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:
- Demographic characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, medical history, and chronic medication
- Body weight and body mass index (BMI)
- Reason for catheterization (STEMI, NSTEMI, unstable angina, stable coronary artery disease, suspected coronary artery disease, or valvular disease)
- Periprocedural antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy
- Laboratory tests: Ht, Hgb, PLT, WBC, Urea, Creatinine
- Allen test and quality of radial artery pulse
- Total puncture attempts and total time to achieve vascular access
- Fluoroscopy duration, total angiography time, and contrast volume
- Number and type of diagnostic catheters used
- Type of hemostatic device and duration of hemostasis Primary endpoint Need for vascular access crossover due to failed puncture, failed wire or sheath advancement, or inability to complete the procedure through the initial vascular access. The exact reason for crossover will be recorded.
Secondary endpoints
- Local hematoma classified according to EASY criteria
- Arterial spasm severity
- Sheath placement time
- Total procedural time
- Time from puncture initiation until completion of coronary angiography before PCI
- Time required for diagnostic coronary angiography after sheath placement
- Time required until PCI completion
- Total fluoroscopy time
- Total DAP
- Air Kerma
- Hemostasis duration
- Vascular complications (arterial perforation, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula)
- Distal radial artery occlusion before discharge
- Bleeding events according to BARC classification
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (care provider, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| ultrasound guided distal radial artery | Active comparator | Procedure: coronary angiographyultrasound guided distal radial artery acess for coronary angiography |
| ultrasound guided conventional transradial acess | Active comparator | Procedure: coronary angiographyultrasound guided conventional transradial acess for coronary angiography |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Indication for Invasive coronary angiography
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- STEMI
- Renal replacement therapy patients
- Serious dermal or bone deformity of the radiocarpal joint
- Shock
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| coronary angiographyAlso: pciDiagnostic and if indicated percutaneus coronary intervention during coronary angiography | Procedure or surgery | ultrasound guided conventional transradial acess, ultrasound guided distal radial artery |
Primary outcome
crossover
Time frame: Periprocedural.Up to 5 mins will be allowed before giving up on designated method to obtain access
Need for a different access to begin the procedure other than the one specified in the patient's arm
8 secondary outcomes
Arterial vasospasm
Time frame: periprocedural
hemostasis
Time frame: Will be checked at set intervals of 30-60-90-180 mins post procedure
Time until pci
Time frame: periprocedural
radial artery occlusion
Time frame: 30 days post procedure
hematoma
Time frame: pre discharge , post procedure
Time required for sheath insertion
Time frame: periprocedural
Total procedure time
Time frame: periprocedural
Coronary angiography time
Time frame: periprocedural
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Jun 2026.
- Background: PubMed 32982609Mori S, Hirano K, Yamawaki M, Kobayashi N, Sakamoto Y, Tsutsumi M, Honda Y, Makino K, Shirai S, Ito Y. A Comparative Analysis between Ultrasound-Guided and Conventional Distal Transradial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention. J Interv Cardiol. 2020 Sep 8;2020:7342732. doi: 10.1155/2020/7342732. eCollection 2020.
- Background: PubMed 30077047Moussa Pacha H, Alahdab F, Al-Khadra Y, Idris A, Rabbat F, Darmoch F, Soud M, Zaitoun A, Kaki A, Rao SV, Kwok CS, Mamas MA, Alraies MC. Ultrasound-guided versus palpation-guided radial artery catheterization in adult population: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J. 2018 Oct;204:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.06.007. Epub 2018 Jun 19.
- Background: PubMed 36423974Ferrante G, Condello F, Rao SV, Maurina M, Jolly S, Stefanini GG, Reimers B, Condorelli G, Lefevre T, Pancholy SB, Bertrand O, Valgimigli M. Distal vs Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Angiography and/or Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Nov 28;15(22):2297-2311. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.09.006.
- Background: PubMed 32321695Hamandi M, Saad M, Hasan R, Megaly M, Abbott JD, Dib C, Szerlip M, Potluri S, Lotfi A, Kiemeneij F, Al-Azizi KM. Distal Versus Conventional Transradial Artery Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: A Meta-Analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Oct;21(10):1209-1213. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.03.020. Epub 2020 Mar 14.
- Background: PubMed 37360091Feng C, Zong B, Liu Y, Chen M, Li S, Xu D, Han B. Comparison of distal transradial approach versus conventional transradial approach for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: A prospective observational study. Heliyon. 2023 Jun 14;9(6):e17150. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17150. eCollection 2023 Jun.
- Background: PubMed 38331793Chen T, Li L, Li F, Lu W, Shi G, Li W, Yang A, Huang H, Xiao J, Zhang Q, Gu J, Xue S, Zhang L, Li L, Xu L, Ji R, Wang H, Cai G. Comparison of long-term radial artery occlusion via distal vs. conventional transradial access (CONDITION): a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2024 Feb 8;22(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03281-7.
- Background: PubMed 35595673Aminian A, Sgueglia GA, Wiemer M, Kefer J, Gasparini GL, Ruzsa Z, van Leeuwen MAH, Ungureanu C, Leibundgut G, Vandeloo B, Kedev S, Bernat I, Ratib K, Iglesias JF, Al Hage E, Posteraro GA, Pascut D, Maes F, Regazzoli D, Kakonyi K, Meijers TA, Colletti G, Krivoshei L, Lochy S, Zafirovska B, Horak D, Nolan J, Degrauwe S, Tobita K, Saito S. Distal Versus Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: The DISCO RADIAL Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Jun 27;15(12):1191-1201. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.04.032. Epub 2022 May 17.
- Background: PubMed 33602433Eid-Lidt G, Rivera Rodriguez A, Jimenez Castellanos J, Farjat Pasos JI, Estrada Lopez KE, Gaspar J. Distal Radial Artery Approach to Prevent Radial Artery Occlusion Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Feb 22;14(4):378-385. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.013.
- Background: PubMed 30314833Koutouzis M, Kontopodis E, Tassopoulos A, Tsiafoutis I, Katsanou K, Rigatou A, Didagelos M, Andreou K, Lazaris E, Oikonomidis N, Maniotis C, Ziakas A. Distal Versus Traditional Radial Approach for Coronary Angiography. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019 Aug;20(8):678-680. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.09.018. Epub 2018 Oct 2.
- Background: PubMed 30403016Roh JH, Lee JH. Distal Radial Approach through the Anatomical Snuff Box for Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Korean Circ J. 2018 Dec;48(12):1131-1134. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2018.0293. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 34922888Tsigkas G, Papageorgiou A, Moulias A, Kalogeropoulos AP, Papageorgopoulou C, Apostolos A, Papanikolaou A, Vasilagkos G, Davlouros P. Distal or Traditional Transradial Access Site for Coronary Procedures: A Single-Center, Randomized Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Jan 10;15(1):22-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.09.037. Epub 2021 Dec 15.
- Background: PubMed 26811162Rashid M, Kwok CS, Pancholy S, Chugh S, Kedev SA, Bernat I, Ratib K, Large A, Fraser D, Nolan J, Mamas MA. Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jan 25;5(1):e002686. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.002686.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. We plan to share data with other researchers only if they're formally requested and cited afterwards
Related trials for Radial Artery Access
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Evaluation of Safety, Performance and Usability of the TR Band DISTAL Device for Hemostasis Following Distal Radial Access in Coronary Procedures
Hemostasis, Distal Radial Artery Access (dTRA)
Active, not recruiting
Radial Versus Femoral Secondary Access in Patients Undergoing TAVI
TAVI(Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation)
Recruiting
DIStal Versus COnventional Radial Access for COMPLEX Large-bore Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Vascular Access Site Occlusion
Not yet recruiting
Routine Microaxial Heart Pump Support and Protocolized Pulmonary Artery Catheter Monitoring Versus Standard Care in Heart Attack-Related Cardiogenic Shock
Cardiogenic Shock, Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI)
Recruiting
Radial vs. State-Of-The-Art Femoral Access for Bleeding and Access Site Complication Reduction in Cardiac Catheterization (REBIRTH)
Patient Satisfaction, Vascular Access Complication
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Grigorios Tsigas, assistant professor contact
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing coronary angiography in people with Radial Artery Access and Distal Radial Artery Access (dTRA), run by University Hospital of Patras at 1 site in Greece.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Jun 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Greece. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Athinagoras Theofilatos (+30 6946747300, athinag@gmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
crossover (time frame: Periprocedural.Up to 5 mins will be allowed before giving up on designated method to obtain access). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07617259, which also lists 16 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Jun 2026.