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

Abstract

To compare the safety and effectiveness of distal radial artery (DRA) versus conventional radial artery (CRA) catheterization for invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring. This meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials published up to December 30, 2025 were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and SinoMed. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 18.0, and evidence quality was evaluated with the GRADE system. 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,790 participants were included. For the primary outcomes, compared with CRA, DRA was associated with lower incidences of haematoma (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.73), catheter blockage (RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.14-0.81), and bleeding (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.11-0.59), but a longer catheter insertion time (MD = 26.89, 95% CI: 5.28-48.50). For the secondary outcomes, DRA was associated with a shorter haemostasis time and reduced waveform instability, with no significant differences in first-attempt success rate or pain scores. Subgroup analysis showed a higher first-attempt success rate in patients aged ≤ 65 years (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.28). 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. DRA may represent a feasible alternative in surgical and intensive care settings; however, further high-quality studies are needed to confirm its long-term safety and generalizability.