Clinic for Invasive Cardiology, University Clinical Center Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Clinic for Gastroenterology, University Clinical Center Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Med Arch. 2023 Apr;77(2):112-117. doi: 10.5455/medarh.2023.77.112-117.
The transfemoral (TF) arterial approach is still the most commonly used approach for performing diagnostic coronary angiography in most centers in the world as well as in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Recently, the transradial (TR) arterial approach has gained more and more supporters among interventional cardiologists.
The aim of the study was to compare the duration of the procedure, the amount of delivered ionizing radiation, the amount of applied contrast agent, the frequency of procedural complications and patient comfort during coronary angiography performed via TR and TF arterial approach.
The total sample of 240 respondents was divided into two groups in such a way that the first group consisted of 121 respondents who underwent coronary angiography using TR arterial approach, and the second group consisted of 119 respondents who underwent coronary angiography using TF arterial approach. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to verify the research objective.
The obtained research results showed that the duration of coronary angiography and the amount of radiation was greater when using TR arterial approach compared to TF approach. There is no statistically significant difference in relation to the amount of applied contrast medium and the frequency of complications between the two approaches. Periprocedural and postprocedural comfort was better in patents who underwent TR approach.
The findings of this study show that diagnostic coronary angiography performed via the TR arterial approach is as safe for the patient as diagnostic coronary angiography performed via the TF arterial approach. With both approaches, there is no significant difference in the amount of contrast agent used nor in the frequency of complications. Procedure duration and radiation exposure are shorter when TF arterial approach i used, while patient comfort is better when the TR arterial approach is used.
在世界上大多数中心以及波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那,经股动脉(TF)入路仍然是进行诊断性冠状动脉造影最常用的方法。最近,经桡动脉(TR)入路在介入心脏病学家中越来越受欢迎。
本研究旨在比较经 TR 和 TF 动脉入路进行冠状动脉造影时的手术持续时间、放射剂量、造影剂用量、操作并发症发生率和患者舒适度。
总共 240 名受访者被分为两组,第一组 121 名接受 TR 动脉入路冠状动脉造影,第二组 119 名接受 TF 动脉入路冠状动脉造影。使用 Mann-Whitney U 检验验证研究目标。
研究结果表明,与 TF 入路相比,TR 入路的冠状动脉造影持续时间和放射剂量更大。两种方法之间,造影剂用量和并发症发生率无统计学差异。TR 入路的患者围手术期和术后舒适度更好。
本研究结果表明,经 TR 动脉入路进行诊断性冠状动脉造影对患者与经 TF 动脉入路一样安全。两种方法的造影剂用量和并发症发生率无显著差异。TF 动脉入路可缩短手术时间和放射暴露,而 TR 动脉入路可提高患者舒适度。