Comparison of mean contrast volume in patients undergoing coronary angiography via radial versus femoral approach.
Abstract
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The long procedure time during the angiography results in a large radiation dose as well as large contrast volume used which is linked with higher rates of contrast-induced nephropathy. So the selection of best route for coronary angiography is very important to reduce the amount of both radiation and contrast volume.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: To compare mean contrast volume in patients undergoing coronary angiography by radial versus femoral approach.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: It was a randomized controlled trial. The study was conducted in Cardiology Department, Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore from June 9, 2018 to December 9, 2018. Total 128 patients were counseled and explained the details of the study. Patients were randomly divided into following two groups using lottery method as Group A: Radial Approach and Group-B: Femoral Approach. Vascular puncture was carried out by using standard radial arterial sheaths. After insertion of sheath in to the artery standard 5000U of heparin and 200mcg of nitroglycerin was administered and by using 6Fr angiographic catheters angiography was performed using non-ionic contrast, timing of the procedure was noted.
RESULTS: Age distribution of the patients was done, it shows that 27(42.19%) in Group-A and 25(39.06%) in Group-B were between 30-50 years of age whereas 37(57.81%) in Group-A and 39(60.94%) in Group-B were between 51-70 years of age.
Gender distribution of the patients was done, it shows that 36(56.25%) in Group-A and 36(56.25%) in Group-B were male whereas 28(43.75%) in Group-A and 28(43.75%) in Group-B were females.
Comparison of mean contrast volume in patients undergoing coronary angiography by radial versus femoral approach shows that in Group-A, it was 82.70±2.59 and in Group-B, it was 76.19±3.42, p value was 0.0001.The data was stratified for age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia and history of smoking. Post-stratification, independent sample t-test was applied taking p value of ?0.05 as statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Mean contrast volume was significantly higher in patients undergoing coronary angiography by radial when compared to those with femoral approach.
KEY WORDS: Coronary angiography, radial approach, femoral approach, mean contrast volume.
References
REFERENCES
Van Mieghem CAG. CT as gatekeeper of invasive coronary angiography in patients with suspected CAD. CardiovascDiagnTher 2017;7(2):189–95.
Tavakol M, Ashraf S, Brener SJ. Risks and Complications of Coronary Angiography: A Comprehensive Review. Glob J Health Sci 2012;4(1):65–93.
Hwang J, Lee SY, Chon MK, Lee SH, Hwang KW, Kim Js. Radiation Exposure in Coronary Angiography: A Comparison of Cineangiography and Fluorography. Korean Circ J 2015;45(6):451–6.
Mohammed NMA, Mahfouz A, Achkar K, Rafie IM, Hajar R. Contrast-induced Nephropathy. Heart Views 2013;14(3):106–16.
Usman A, Hussain F, Iqbal T, Tuyyab F. Fluoroscopy Time During Cardiac Catheterization Procedures Using the Radial and Femoral Routes. J Ayub Med Coll Abbott 2015;27(3):569-72.
Tayeh O, Ettori F. Coronary angiography safety between radial and femoral access. The Egyptian Heart Journal 2014;66(2):149-54.
Cooper CJ, El-Shiekh RA, Cohen DJ, Blaesing L, BurketMW, Basu A, et al. Effect of transradial access on qualityof life and cost of cardiac catheterization: a randomizedcomparison.AmHeart J 1999;138:430-6.
Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, SlagboomT,van der Wieken R. A randomized comparison ofpercutaneoustransluminal coronary angioplasty by theradial, brachial and femoral approaches: the accessstudy. JAmCollCardiol 1997;29(6):1269-75
Brueck M, Bandorski D, Kramer W, WieczorekM,Höltgen R, Tillmanns H. A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. JACC CardiovascInterv 2009;2(11):1047-54.
Philippe F, Larrazet F, Meziane T, Dibie A. Comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach in the treatment of acute myocardial in farction with primary angioplasty and abciximab. Catheter CardiovascInterv 2004;61:67-73.
Cantor WJ, Kaplan AL, Velianou JL, Sketch MH, Barsness GW, Berger PB, et al. Effectiveness and safety of abciximab after failed thrombolytic therapy. Am J Cardiol 2001;87(4):439-42.
Harris JM. Coronary angiography and its complications. The search for risk factors. Arch Intern Med 1984;144(2):337-41.
Nikolsky E, Aymong ED, Dangas G, Mehran R. Radio contrast nephropathy: identifying the high-risk patient and the implications of exacerbating renal function. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2003;4(Suppl 1):S7-14.
Brasselet C, Blanpain T, Tassan-Mangina S, Deschildre A, Duval S, Vitry F, et al. Comparison of operator radiation exposure with optimized radiation protection devices during coronary angiograms and ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions by radial and femoral routes. Eur Heart J 2008;29(1):63-70.
Rihal CS, Textor SC, Grill DE, Berger PB, Ting HH, Best PJ, et al. Incidence and prognostic importance of acuterenal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention.Circulation 2002;105(19):2259-64.
Mujtaba SF. Comparison of radiation and contrast safety between radial and femoral approaches in patients undergoing coronary catheterization. Pak Heart J 2018; 51(02):99-103.
