Hisham Hirzallah1, Ahmed Amro2, Damir Kusmic3, Zachary Curtis3, Emilia C Leigh3, Yazan Numan3, Julia Parsons3, Mohammad Amro4, Sutoidem Akpanudo3, Rameez Sayyed2, Mehiar Elhamdani2. 1. Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, United States of America. Electronic address: hirzallah@marshll.edu. 2. Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Disease, United States of America. 3. Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, United States of America. 4. Misr University for science and Technology, Egypt.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention in patients with coronary artery bypass grafts in terms of volume of radiographic contrast administered during cardiac catheterization, fluoroscopy time, and total procedure time. BACKGROUND: The transradial access has been increasingly used as an alternative to transfemoral. Several studies demonstrated that such access is associated with lower rates of vascular and bleeding complications. Although coronary artery bypass graft patients comprise a significant portion of the coronary artery disease population, this subpopulation was often excluded or underrepresented in transradial access studies. METHODS: Single center, retrospective cohort study. In the study period, all patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery and had received cardiac catheterization at our institution were included in the study population. RESULTS: A total of 2153 patients were included in the study. From these, 1937 were performed by femoral artery and 216 by transradial approach. Compared to the transfemoral approach, transradial access was associated with lower contrast use (136.3 ± 74.4 ml vs. 122.8 ± 59.1 ml, p = 0.035) and longer fluoroscopy time (13.9 ± 25.6 min vs. 15.9 ± 14.3 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic and interventional catheterization through the transradial approach in patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery was associated with less contrast amount used and longer fluoroscopy time compared to the transfemoral approach. The transradial approach was also associated with lower crossover rates and less vascular complications.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention in patients with coronary artery bypass grafts in terms of volume of radiographic contrast administered during cardiac catheterization, fluoroscopy time, and total procedure time. BACKGROUND: The transradial access has been increasingly used as an alternative to transfemoral. Several studies demonstrated that such access is associated with lower rates of vascular and bleeding complications. Although coronary artery bypass graft patients comprise a significant portion of the coronary artery disease population, this subpopulation was often excluded or underrepresented in transradial access studies. METHODS: Single center, retrospective cohort study. In the study period, all patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery and had received cardiac catheterization at our institution were included in the study population. RESULTS: A total of 2153 patients were included in the study. From these, 1937 were performed by femoral artery and 216 by transradial approach. Compared to the transfemoral approach, transradial access was associated with lower contrast use (136.3 ± 74.4 ml vs. 122.8 ± 59.1 ml, p = 0.035) and longer fluoroscopy time (13.9 ± 25.6 min vs. 15.9 ± 14.3 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic and interventional catheterization through the transradial approach in patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery was associated with less contrast amount used and longer fluoroscopy time compared to the transfemoral approach. The transradial approach was also associated with lower crossover rates and less vascular complications.
Authors: Jan Roczniak; Wojciech Koziołek; Marcin Piechocki; Tomasz Tokarek; Andrzej Surdacki; Stanisław Bartuś; Michał Chyrchel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 3.390