Haemodynamics, fluids & transfusion

Safety and efficacy of distal versus conventional radial artery cannulation for invasive blood pressure monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis

J Clin Monit ComputPublished Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Authors' conclusion

DRA catheterization for invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring appears to be associated with fewer complications and more stable arterial waveform acquisition than CRA catheterization, despite a longer insertion time.

Study context

Population
Patients undergoing radial artery catheterization for invasive arterial BP monitoring (randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to December 30, 2025)
Participants
1,790 patients · 12 RCTs
Comparison
Distal radial artery (DRA) vs conventional radial artery (CRA)
Outcome
Haematoma, catheter blockage, bleeding and catheter insertion time
Methodological detailsPRISMA, GRADE evidence quality assessment, subgroup analysis
  • PRISMA
  • GRADE evidence quality assessment
  • Subgroup analysis

Pooled result

As reported in the abstract

DRA vs CRARelative risk (95% CI)
Haematoma
0.42(0.24–0.73)
Catheter blockage
0.33(0.14–0.81)
Bleeding
0.25(0.11–0.59)
DRA vs CRAMD (95% CI)
Catheter insertion time (longer with DRA)
26.89(5.28–48.50)

Further pooled results

Haemostasis time and waveform instability

DRA associated with shorter haemostasis time and reduced waveform instability

First-attempt success rate and pain scores

No significant differences in first-attempt success rate or pain scores

First-attempt success rate, patients aged ≤ 65 years (subgroup analysis)

Higher first-attempt success rate in patients aged ≤ 65 years
RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.28
  • Subgroup analysis

Safety

Complications (haematoma, catheter blockage, bleeding)

Lower incidences of haematoma, catheter blockage and bleeding with DRA vs CRA (see key findings)

Original publication

Safety and efficacy of distal versus conventional radial artery cannulation for invasive blood pressure monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 26 June 2026. doi:10.1007/s10877-026-01451-x

Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →

Get them every week

New studies on this topic in My Week and in your Monday e-mail.

We e-mail you a sign-in link and a code. No password, no spam.