Search

Background Proximal radial artery (pRA) access for cardiac catheterization is safe but can jeopardize subsequent use of the artery because of occlusion. Distal radial artery (dRA) access in the anatomical snuffbox preserves the radial artery, but safety and potential detrimental effects on hand function are unknown. Methods and Results In the DIPRA (Distal Versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization and Intervention) study, a single-center trial, 300 patients were randomized 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through dRA or pRA. The primary end point of change in hand function from baseline to 30 days was a composite of the QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb forefinger pinch test. Secondary end points included access feasibility and complications; 254 of 300 patients completed follow-up at 30 days; of these, 128 were randomized to dRA and 126 to pRA with balanced demographic and procedural characteristics. Both groups had similar rates of access site bleeding (dRA 0% versus pRA 1.4%; P =0.25). Six patients with dRA failed access compared with 2 patients with pRA. Radial artery occlusion occurred in 2 pRA versus none in dRA. There were no significant differences in change in hand function, median hand-grip (dRA 0 [-3.2, 3.3] versus pRA 0.7 [-2.3, 3.3] kg; P =0.21), pinch-grip (dRA -0.3 [-1.2, 0.5] versus pRA 0 [-0.9, 0.9] kg; P =0.09), and QuickDASH (dRA 0 [-4.6, 2.3] versus pRA 0 [-4.6, 2.3] points, P =0.96). There was no significant difference in the composite of hand function between pRA and dRA. Conclusions dRA is a safe strategy for cardiac catheterization with a low complication rate. Compared with pRA, there is no increased risk of hand dysfunction at 30 days. Registration URL: https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04318990.

Background: Radial artery (RA) catheterization is the access of choice over femoral artery access for most interventional vascular procedures given its safety and faster patient recovery. There has been growing interest in distal radial artery (dRA) access as an alternative to the conventional proximal radial artery (pRA) access. Preserving the RA is important which serves as a potential conduit for future coronary artery bypass surgery, dialysis conduit or preserve the artery for future cardiovascular procedures. The dRA runs in close proximity to the radial nerve, which raises the concern of potential detrimental effects on hand function., Study Design: The Distal versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for cardiac catheterization and intervention (DIPRA) trial is a prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled, open-label, single center study evaluating the outcomes of hand function and effectiveness of dRA compared to pRA access in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. The eligible subjects will be randomized to dRA and pRA access in a (1:1) fashion. The primary end point is an evaluation of hand function at one and twelve months follow-up. Secondary end points include rates of access site hematoma, access site bleeding, other vascular access complications, arterial access success rate, and RA occlusion at one and twelve months follow up., Conclusion: Effects of dRA on hand function remains unknown and it's use questionable in the presence of a widely accepted pRA. DIPRA trial is designed to determine the safety and effectiveness of dRA for diagnostic and interventional cardiovascular procedures compared to the standard of care pRA., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The prevalence and seroconversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection among asymptomatic health care workers in the US is unclear. Our study utilized real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 testing and serological evaluation to detect IgG antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 antigens in asymptomatic health care workers. A total of 197 subjects with a mean age of 35 years were recruited into the study. While most (67%) reported prolonged contact with known COVID-19 patients, only 8 (4.2%) tested positive on RT-PCR and 23 (11.7%) had detectable levels of IgG antibody to SARS-CoV-2. Out of 19 subjects with detectable IgG antibody at week 1, 11 (57.9%) lost their antibody response by week 3. No statistically significant difference was found in baseline characteristics or exposure status between subjects with positive and negative results on RT-PCR or antibody positivity. In conclusion, we found a low incidence of PCR positivity for SARS-CoV-2 in a high-risk group. This likely demonstrates the effectiveness of proper personal protective equipment use and low transmission risk in health care settings. The detectable IgG antibody titer was low, and a significant portion of subjects lost their antibody response on repeat testing. This may mean that antibody response in asymptomatic patients is categorically different than in symptomatic hospitalized patients with COVID-19., (Copyright © 2021 Baylor University Medical Center.)