Comparing the Left Distal Transradial Artery Access to Traditional Access Methods For Coronary Angiography: A Single-Center Experience

Maleeha Saleem, Steven A Hamilton, Karan H Pahuja, Mohab Hassib, Ahmed A. Elkhouly, Muhammad Haseeb-ul-Rasool, Justin Fox
{"title":"Comparing the Left Distal Transradial Artery Access to Traditional Access Methods For Coronary Angiography: A Single-Center Experience","authors":"Maleeha Saleem, Steven A Hamilton, Karan H Pahuja, Mohab Hassib, Ahmed A. Elkhouly, Muhammad Haseeb-ul-Rasool, Justin Fox","doi":"10.26502/fccm.92920268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Citation Comparing the Left Distal Transradial Artery Access to Traditional Access Methods For Coronary Angiography: A Single-Center Experience. Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine 6 (2022): Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of left distal transradial (LdTRA) approach in patients who had prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with conventional femoral and radial access for coronary angiography. and for radial access was 13.23±1.74 minutes. The fluoroscopy dose for femoral access was 599.98±26.63 Gy/cm2, for snuffbox approach 722.71±112.94 Gy/cm2 and for radial access was 767.06±90.89 Gy/cm2. There were no complications noted in our study. We found no statistical significance difference between approaches with regards to time of access, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy dose and mean length of hospital stay. Conclusion: Due to the lack of statistical significance between outcomes of either approach, all approaches are acceptable options. Clinically, the snuffbox approach may be superior because it helps salvage the radial conduit for future coronary interventions and avoids the risk of femoral access complications. Therefore, we suggest operators strongly consider the snuffbox approach in patients with prior CABG.","PeriodicalId":72523,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26502/fccm.92920268","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Citation Comparing the Left Distal Transradial Artery Access to Traditional Access Methods For Coronary Angiography: A Single-Center Experience. Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine 6 (2022): Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of left distal transradial (LdTRA) approach in patients who had prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with conventional femoral and radial access for coronary angiography. and for radial access was 13.23±1.74 minutes. The fluoroscopy dose for femoral access was 599.98±26.63 Gy/cm2, for snuffbox approach 722.71±112.94 Gy/cm2 and for radial access was 767.06±90.89 Gy/cm2. There were no complications noted in our study. We found no statistical significance difference between approaches with regards to time of access, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy dose and mean length of hospital stay. Conclusion: Due to the lack of statistical significance between outcomes of either approach, all approaches are acceptable options. Clinically, the snuffbox approach may be superior because it helps salvage the radial conduit for future coronary interventions and avoids the risk of femoral access complications. Therefore, we suggest operators strongly consider the snuffbox approach in patients with prior CABG.
经桡动脉左远端入路与传统冠状动脉造影入路的比较:单中心经验
经桡动脉左远端入路与传统冠状动脉造影入路的比较:单中心经验。摘要目的:本研究的目的是比较左远端经桡动脉(LdTRA)入路在术前行冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)患者中与传统的股动脉和桡动脉入路进行冠状动脉造影的有效性和安全性。桡骨通路为13.23±1.74分钟。股骨入路透视剂量为599.98±26.63 Gy/cm2,鼻烟盒入路为722.71±112.94 Gy/cm2,桡骨入路为767.06±90.89 Gy/cm2。本研究未发现并发症。我们发现两种入路在入路时间、手术时间、透视时间、透视剂量和平均住院时间方面无统计学差异。结论:由于两种方法的结果之间缺乏统计学意义,所有方法都是可接受的选择。临床上,鼻烟壶入路可能更优越,因为它有助于挽救桡动脉导管,以便将来进行冠状动脉介入治疗,并避免股动脉通路并发症的风险。因此,我们强烈建议手术人员在既往CABG患者中考虑鼻烟壶入路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信