Document Type : Original Article(s)


1 Interventional Cardiology Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Heart Failure Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Hypertension Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

4 Cardiac Rehabilitation Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

5 Isfahan Cardiovascular Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran


BACKGROUND: The feasibility and safety of coronary angiography (CAG) and angioplasty via trans-snuffbox approach (TSA) is still concerned; therefore, in this study, we aimed to assess possible complications occurring after TSA versus trans-radial approach (TRA).METHODS: This prospective observational study was undertaken from June 2017 till March 2018. Individuals aged at least 18 years who were admitted for CAG through upper extremity were eligible and categorized to TSA (n = 70) and TRA (n = 56) groups. Occurrence of complications including hematoma, pain or paresthesia, pseudoaneurysm formation, arterial obstruction, limb ischemia, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and emergency vessel revascularization was assessed after the procedure and in two separate visits three and six months afterwards.RESULTS: The mean age of participants in TSA and TRA groups was 55.1 ± 9.7 and 56.5 ± 9.6 years, respectively (P = 0.415). Men were the dominant group in both approaches [TSA: 44 (62.8%), TRA: 36 (64.3%), P = 0.868]. Success rates in TSA and TRA were 88.6% and 94.6%, respectively (P = 0.230). Radial artery occlusion (RAO) was reported in two (3.2%) and one (1.8%) case in TRA and TSA, respectively (P = 0.653). MACE incidence was not significantly different in TSA compared with TRA group (1.8% vs. 4.8%, respectively, P = 0.389). There was no major procedural complication, neither in TSA nor in TRA category.CONCLUSION: Our results revealed that TSA could be classified as an alternative modality to other common CAG and angioplasty methods due to its high safety rate and lower complications. Several comprehensive population-based studies are necessary for confirming these findings. 


  1. Mueller RL, Sanborn TA. The history of interventional cardiology: Cardiac catheterization, angioplasty, and related interventions. Am Heart J 1995; 129(1): 146-72.
  2. Roghani-Dehkordi F, Mansouri R, Khosravi A, Mahaki B, Akbarzadeh M, Kermani-Alghoraishi M. Transulnar versus transradial approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty: Considering their complications. ARYA Atheroscler 2018; 14(3): 128-31.
  3. Mason PJ, Shah B, Tamis-Holland JE, Bittl JA, Cohen MG, Safirstein J, et al. 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; 11(9): e000035.
  4. Liu P, Gao XL, Li BF, Ding XZ, Wang ZH, Dang YP, et al. Radial versus femoral artery access for percutaneous coronary angiography and intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in Chinese population. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015; 8(10): 17151-66.
  5. Sattur S, Singh M, Kaluski E. Trans-ulnar catheterization and coronary interventions: From technique to outcomes. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2017; 18(4): 299-303.
  6. Al-Azizi KM, Lotfi AS. The distal left radial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention: A new era. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2018; 19(8S): 35-40.
  7. Campeau L. Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1989; 16(1): 3-7.
  8. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ. Percutaneous transradial artery approach for coronary stent implantation. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1993; 30(2): 173-8.
  9. Brener MI, Bush A, Miller JM, Hasan RK. Influence of radial versus femoral access site on coronary angiography and intervention outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 90(7): 1093-104.
  10. Caputo RP, Tremmel JA, Rao S, Gilchrist IC, Pyne C, Pancholy S, et al. Transradial arterial access for coronary and peripheral procedures: executive summary by the Transradial Committee of the SCAI. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 78(6): 823-39.
  11. Roh JH, Lee JH. Distal radial approach through the anatomical snuff box for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Korean Circ J 2018; 48(12): 1131-4.
  12. Kaledin A, Kochanov I, Podmetin P, Ardeev VN. Distal radial artery in endovascular interventions [Online]. [cited 2017]; Available from: URL:
  13. Babunashvili A. Novel snuff-box technique for trans-radial approach: Let's go distal. Proceedings of the Aim-Radial 2016; 2016: 22-3.
  14. Roghani-Dehkordi F. Merits of more distal accesses in the hand for coronary angiography and intervention. Proceedings of the 4th International Cardiovascular Joint Congress in Isfahan; 2016 Nov. 24-25; Isfahan, Iran.
  15. Kiemeneij F. Left distal transradial access in the anatomical snuffbox for coronary angiography (ldTRA) and interventions (ldTRI). EuroIntervention 2017; 13(7): 851-7.
  16. Roghani-Dehkordi F, Hashemifard O, Sadeghi M, Mansouri R, Akbarzadeh M, Dehghani A, et al. Distal accesses in the hand (two novel techniques) for percutaneous coronary angiography and intervention. ARYA Atheroscler 2018; 14(2): 95-100.
  17. Davies RE, Gilchrist IC. Back hand approach to radial access: The snuff box approach. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2018; 19(3 Pt B): 324-6.
  18. Amin MR, Singha CK, Banerjee SK, Hoque H, Mahabub SE, Hoque M, et al. Comparison of distal transradial in the anatomical snuffbox versus conventional transradial access for coronary angiography and intervention-an experience in 100 cases. Univ Heart J 2017; 13(2): 40-5.
  19. Soydan E, Akin M. Coronary angiography using
  20. the left distal radial approach-An alternative site to conventional radial coronary angiography. Anatol J Cardiol 2018; 19(4): 243-8.
  21. Toledo JF, Gubolino LA, Teixeirense PT, Bragalha AM, Filho IJ. Diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures by the distal radial artery in the anatomical snuffbox: A real world analysis. J Cardiovasc Dis Diagn 2018; 6(5): 1000337.
  22. Kim Y, Ahn Y, Kim I, Lee DH, Kim MC, Sim DS, et al. Feasibility of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention via left snuffbox approach. Korean Circ J 2018; 48(12): 1120-30.
  23. Aoi S, Htun WW, Freeo S, Lee S, Kyaw H, Alfaro V, et al. Distal transradial artery access in the anatomical snuffbox for coronary angiography as an alternative access site for faster hemostasis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 94(5): 651-7.
  24. Koutouzis M, Kontopodis E, Tassopoulos A, Tsiafoutis I, Katsanou K, Rigatou A, et al. Distal versus traditional radial approach for coronary angiography. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2019; 20(8): 678-80.