Department of Cardiology, LPS Institute of Cardiology, Kanpur, UP, 208002, India.
Department of Cardiology, LPS Institute of Cardiology, Kanpur, UP, 208002, India.
Indian Heart J. 2020 Sep-Oct;72(5):435-441. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2020.06.002. Epub 2020 Jun 18.
This is an open-label randomized control trial with a parallel assignment with single masking comparing patients undergoing coronary angiography via dorsal radial and classical radial access.
Study done at three tertiary cardiac care centers for two years. A total of 970 patients were finally recruited for the study. Patients were randomly selected for dorsal radial artery access Group A (485 patients) and classical radial artery access Group B (485 patients) without any bias for age & sex.
On comparative assessment both techniques are found to be equal in terms of procedural success rate. While dorsal access was superior in terms of fewer incidences of forearm radial artery occlusion, radial artery spasm, less post-procedure persistence of pain, and hand clumsiness. In comparison to this, the number of puncture attempts and time to achieve post-procedure hemostasis is less in classical radial access.
So both techniques have pros and coins and it is the discretion of interventionists to adopt which technique.
这是一项开放性标签、随机对照试验，采用平行分组和单盲方法比较经背侧桡动脉和经典桡动脉入路进行冠状动脉造影的患者。
该研究在三个三级心脏护理中心进行了两年。最终共招募了 970 名患者参加该研究。患者被随机分配到背侧桡动脉入路组 A（485 例）和经典桡动脉入路组 B（485 例），没有对年龄和性别进行任何偏见。
在对两种技术的比较评估中，发现它们在手术成功率方面是相等的。虽然背侧入路在以下方面具有优势：前臂桡动脉闭塞、桡动脉痉挛、术后疼痛持续时间和手部笨拙的发生率较低。相比之下，经典桡动脉入路的穿刺次数和达到术后止血所需的时间较少。
因此，两种技术都有优点和缺点，介入医生可以自行决定采用哪种技术。
