Safety and efficacy of distal versus conventional radial artery cannulation for invasive blood pressure monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Tian Hao, Yuhan Sha, Wenxiu Niu et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of distal radial artery (DRA) versus conventional radial artery (CRA) catheterization for invasive blood pressure monitoring in 1,790 participants across 12 randomized controlled trials. DRA was associated with significantly lower incidences of hematoma (RR = 0.42), catheter blockage (RR = 0.33), and bleeding (RR = 0.25), although it required a longer catheter insertion time (MD = 26.89).
Key findings
- DRA resulted in a lower incidence of hematoma compared to CRA (RR = 0.42).
- DRA showed a reduced incidence of catheter blockage (RR = 0.33).
- DRA was associated with a lower incidence of bleeding (RR = 0.25).
- DRA had a longer catheter insertion time (MD = 26.89).
Why it matters
Understanding the comparative safety and efficacy of DRA versus CRA is crucial for clinicians involved in invasive blood pressure monitoring, as it may influence procedural choices and patient outcomes in surgical and intensive care settings.