2Department of Cardiology, Başkent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
3Department of 2Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey
4Department of Cardiology, School of Medicine, Ba?kent University, Ankara, Adana, Turkey
5Department of Internal Medicine Çukurova University Faculty of Medicine, Adana
6Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey
Abstract
Objective: The radial approach has been increasingly used as an alternative to femoral access. The purpose of the present study was to assess the feasibility, success, and safety of the transradial approach (TRA) for diagnostic coronary angiography, and to describe the dif- ficulties associated with the technique as compared with transfemoral approach (TRF). Materials and Methods: A series of 180 consecutive patients were divided to TRA or TFA groups by two operators. We compared the groups regarding procedural time, access time, fluoroscopy time, procedural failure, complications, contrast volume, length of hospital stay, and number of used coronary catheters. Results: The number of used coronary catheters was not different between the two groups (p = 0.6). Total hospital length of stay was sig- nificantly shorter in the radial group (p < 0.0001) than in femoral one. We found differences between the radial and femoral groups in the success rate (p<0.0001), contrast volume (p = 0.012), procedural time (p<0.0001), access time (p<0.0001), and fluoroscopy time (p<0.0001). We did not find any major complication in the radial group. There was a major bleeding in the femoral group. Conclusion: The TRA is a safe alternative to femoral catheterization although with lesser procedural success, longer procedural access, and radiation time, and more contrast volume.