Comparison of Mean Fluoroscopic Time and Mean Contrast Volume Used in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography by the Transfemoral Versus Transradial Route.

Introduction The prolonged fluoroscopic time during coronary angiography results in a higher radiation dose delivered to patients. Similarly, a higher contrast volume used is associated with higher rates of contrast-induced nephropathy. This study was designed to identify the better technique in terms of lesser fluoroscopic time and volume of contrast used during the procedure. Objective To compare mean fluoroscopic time and mean contrast volume used in patients undergoing coronary angiography through the transfemoral versus transradial route. Methods A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at the department of cardiology, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) Islamabad between June 2017 and December 2017. Ninety (n=90) patients planned for coronary angiography between 30 and 70 years of age were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to Group A (transfemoral route group) and Group B (transradial route group). Fluoroscopic time (minutes) and contrast volume (milliliters) used were measured in each patient. Results The mean contrast volume used in Group A was 70.4 ml (SD=8.7) and in Group B, it was 90.1 ml (SD=9.8) (P<0.001). The mean fluoroscopic time in Group A was 5.1 min (SD=1.2), and in group B, it was 8.6 min (SD=1.2) (P<0.001). Similar trends were noted when data were stratified with respect to age and gender. Conclusion The mean fluoroscopic time and the mean contrast volume were significantly less in patients where coronary angiography was performed through the transfemoral route than through the transradial route in this study.