Concordance Between Randomized Controlled and Real‐World Evidence for Distal Radial Access: A Structured Comparison of the DISCO RADIAL Trial and KODRA Study

ABSTRACT Background Distal radial access (DRA) has emerged as an alternative to conventional transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary procedures, with potential advantages for reducing radial artery occlusion (RAO). Aim To assess whether favorable outcomes observed in randomized trials are consistently reproduced in routine clinical practice. Methods A structured comparative analysis was performed between the largest randomized controlled trial of DRA (DISCO RADIAL; 650 patients, 16 centers, strict selection criteria, experienced operators) and the largest real‐world DRA registry (KODRA; 4977 consecutive patients, 14 centers, broader inclusion criteria, heterogeneous operator experience). Access‐related outcomes were summarized using inverse variance–weighted estimates and analyzed using random‐effects models to assess agreement across clinical settings, with absolute differences as the primary measure. Heterogeneity (I 2 ) was reported descriptively. Results Despite marked differences in study design, patient populations (body surface area 2.0 vs. 1.7 m 2 ), and operator experience (100% vs. 70% with ≥ 100 DRA cases), concordance was remarkable. RAO at discharge was 0.18% (95% CI 0.07%–0.29%, I 2 = 0%). Overall crossover occurred in 6.8% (95% CI 6.1%–7.4%, I 2 = 0%), with same‐side conventional TRA as predominant bailout (4.3%). Femoral access was required in only 1.3% of cases. No serious bleeding events occurred in either study. Minor bleeding and hematoma showed considerable heterogeneity (I 2 = 80%–98%), likely reflecting differences in surveillance and practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of crossover and RAO estimates. Conclusions DRA demonstrates very low RAO rates, high procedural success, and favorable safety, with consistent performance across controlled and real‐world settings, supporting its feasibility in routine clinical practice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Published
2026-08-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.70832
Primary Topic
Vascular Procedures and Complications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Concordance Between Randomized Controlled and Real‐World Evidence for Distal Radial Access: A Structured Comparison of the DISCO RADIAL Trial and KODRA Study

Gregory A. Sgueglia, Sang Yeub Lee, Bong‐Ki Lee, Ivo Bernát et al.
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Vascular Procedures and Complications
article

Concordance Between Randomized Controlled and Real‐World Evidence for Distal Radial Access: A Structured Comparison of the DISCO RADIAL Trial and KODRA Study

Gregory A. Sgueglia, Sang Yeub Lee, Bong‐Ki Lee, Ivo Bernát, Jun‐Won Lee, Yongcheol Kim, Juan F. Iglesias, Maarten A. H. van Leeuwen, Jin Bae Lee, Adel Aminian
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Distal radial access (DRA) has emerged as an alternative to conventional transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary procedures, with potential advantages for reducing radial artery occlusion (RAO). Aim To assess whether favorable outcomes observed in randomized trials are consistently reproduced in routine clinical practice. Methods A structured comparative analysis was performed between the largest randomized controlled trial of DRA (DISCO RADIAL; 650 patients, 16 centers, strict selection criteria, experienced operators) and the largest real‐world DRA registry (KODRA; 4977 consecutive patients, 14 centers, broader inclusion criteria, heterogeneous operator experience). Access‐related outcomes were summarized using inverse variance–weighted estimates and analyzed using random‐effects models to assess agreement across clinical settings, with absolute differences as the primary measure. Heterogeneity (I 2 ) was reported descriptively. Results Despite marked differences in study design, patient populations (body surface area 2.0 vs. 1.7 m 2 ), and operator experience (100% vs. 70% with ≥ 100 DRA cases), concordance was remarkable. RAO at discharge was 0.18% (95% CI 0.07%–0.29%, I 2 = 0%). Overall crossover occurred in 6.8% (95% CI 6.1%–7.4%, I 2 = 0%), with same‐side conventional TRA as predominant bailout (4.3%). Femoral access was required in only 1.3% of cases. No serious bleeding events occurred in either study. Minor bleeding and hematoma showed considerable heterogeneity (I 2 = 80%–98%), likely reflecting differences in surveillance and practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of crossover and RAO estimates. Conclusions DRA demonstrates very low RAO rates, high procedural success, and favorable safety, with consistent performance across controlled and real‐world settings, supporting its feasibility in routine clinical practice.

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Charles University (CZ), Severance Hospital (KR), Daegu Catholic University Medical Center (KR), Wonju Severance Christian Hospital (KR), University Hospital of Geneva (CH), Kangwon National University Hospital (KR), St. Eugenio Hospital (IT), Isala (NL), Grand Charleroi Hospital (BE), Chung-Ang University Hospital (KR)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Vascular Procedures and Complications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.