Vol 28, No 4 (2021)
Original Article
Published online: 2020-01-09

open access

Page views 1622
Article views/downloads 1199
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Comparison of 4-French versus 5-French sheaths for diagnostic coronary angiography via the snuffbox approach

Ji Woong Roh1, Hee-Yeol Kim1, Youngkeun Ahn2, Myung Ho Jeong2, Yongcheol Kim2
Pubmed: 31960944
Cardiol J 2021;28(4):528-533.


Background: Although a shorter hemostasis duration would be expected when compared with the conventional radial approach as the diameter of the distal radial artery is smaller than that of the conventional radial artery, the optimal duration of hemostasis in diagnostic coronary angiography (CAG) via the distal radial approach, termed the snuffbox approach, has not been well investigated.
Methods: Data from 171 patients were retrospectively collected (55 and 116 patients in the 4-French [Fr] and 5-Fr sheath groups, respectively). The patients had suspected myocardial ischemia and were undergoing diagnostic CAG via the snuffbox approach at a single center between January 2019 and August 2019.
Results: The mean age of the study population was 67.6 ± 11.0 years, and 69% were male. The left snuffbox approach was performed in 146 (85.4%) patients. The mean snuffbox puncture time, defined as the time interval between local anesthesia and sheath cannulation, was 145.1 ± 120.8 s. The hemostasis duration was significantly shorter in the 4-Fr sheath group than in the 5-Fr sheath group (70 [62–90] vs. 120 [120–130] min; p < 0.001). There were local hematomas, defined as ≤ 5 cm in diameter, at the puncture site in 8 (4.7%) patients. Moreover, there were no conventional and distal radial artery occlusions, assessed by manual pulse, after hemostasis in the study population during hospitalization.
Conclusions: Successful hemostasis was obtained within 2 h for diagnostic CAG via the snuffbox approach using the 4-Fr or 5-Fr sheaths.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Ferrante G, Rao SV, Jüni P, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions across the entire spectrum of patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(14): 1419–1434.
  2. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011; 377(9775): 1409–1420.
  3. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015; 385(9986): 2465–2476.
  4. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group, ESC Scientific Document Group . Considerations for the choice between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention as revascularization strategies in major categories of patients with stable multivessel coronary artery disease: an accompanying article of the task force of the 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019; 40(2): 204–212.
  5. Rashid M, Kwok CS, Pancholy S, et al. Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016; 5(1).
  6. Dandekar VK, Vidovich MI, Shroff AR. Complications of transradial catheterization. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2012; 13(1): 39–50.
  7. Kiemeneij F. Left distal transradial access in the anatomical snuffbox for coronary angiography (ldTRA) and interventions (ldTRI). EuroIntervention. 2017; 13(7): 851–857.
  8. Lee JW, Park SW, Son JW, et al. Real-world experience of the left distal transradial approach for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective observational study (LeDRA). EuroIntervention. 2018; 14(9): e995–e99e1003.
  9. Ziakas A, Koutouzis M, Didagelos M, et al. Right arm distal transradial (snuffbox) access for coronary catheterization: Initial experience. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2018 [Epub ahead of print].
  10. Soydan E, Akın M. Coronary angiography using the left distal radial approach - An alternative site to conventional radial coronary angiography. Anatol J Cardiol. 2018; 19(4): 243–248.
  11. Kim Y, Ahn Y, Kim MC, et al. Gender differences in the distal radial artery diameter for the snuffbox approach. Cardiol J. 2018; 25(5): 639–641.
  12. Berezhnoi K, Kokov L, Vanyukov A, et al. Complete revascularization via left snuffbox approach in a nonagenarian patient with acute myocardial infarction. Cardiol J. 2018; 25(4): 530–531.
  13. Kim Y, Jeong MHo, Kim MC, et al. Successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patient with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction via left snuffbox approach: Patient advantages. Cardiol J. 2019; 26(2): 198–199.
  14. Kim Y, Jeong MH, Kim MC, et al. Successful percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with recanalized thrombus: Saving a radial artery by snuffbox approach. Cardiol J. 2019; 26(3): 292–293.
  15. Kim Y, Ahn Y, Kim I, et al. Feasibility of Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention via Left Snuffbox Approach. Korean Circ J. 2018; 48(12): 1120–1130.
  16. Vefali V, Saricam E. The comparison of traditional radial access and novel distal radial access for cardiac catheterization. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019; [Epub ahead of print].
  17. Rao SV, Bernat I, Bertrand OF. Remaining challenges and opportunities for improvement in percutaneous transradial coronary procedures. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(20): 2521–2526.
  18. Sanmartin M, Gomez M, Rumoroso JR, et al. Interruption of blood flow during compression and radial artery occlusion after transradial catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007; 70(2): 185–189.
  19. Pancholy SB, Patel TM. Effect of duration of hemostatic compression on radial artery occlusion after transradial access. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 79(1): 78–81.