Abstract
BackgroundMultiple studies have shown that trans-radial access (TRA) for women undergoing coronary angiography/intervention (CA/I) has a lower risk of vascular access site complications as compared with trans-femoral access (TFA). In patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), studies also showed no significant difference between TRA and TFA in terms of contrast amount (CA), procedure time (PT), and fluoroscopy time (FT). However, those studies mainly included men. Limited information is available on the relative merits of TRA as compared with TFA for cardiac catheterization in females who previously undergone CABG. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of TRA versus TFA in women with prior CABG surgery who are undergoing CA/I in regard to CA, PT, and FT.MethodsIn this single-center retrospective cohort study, females with a history of CABG who underwent CA/I in the period from January 2013 to September 2016 were included. A total of 584 patients were included and divided into two groups: TRA group (49 patients) and TFA group (535 patients). The primary endpoints were CA, PT, and FT. The means for the primary outcomes were compared between the two using the independent t-score test.ResultsA total of 584 female patients with a history of CABG had cardiac catheterization from January 2013 to September 2016 at our center. Trans-femoral access accounted for 91.6% (n=535) of the patients while trans-radial access accounted for 8.4% (n=49) of the patients. A comparison of procedural variables between TRA and TFA revealed that there was no statistical significance in procedure time, fluoroscopy time, or the contrast volume. The access site crossover rate was 6.12% (n=3) from radial to femoral while there was a 0% rate in the femoral to radial access.ConclusionThe key findings of this study suggest that in female patients with a prior history of CABG, TRA is an equally reliable and efficacious approach for both diagnostic angiography and intervention compared to TFA.
Highlights
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality throughout the Western World for men and women alike [1,2]
Trans-femoral access accounted for 91.6% (n=535) of the patients while transradial access accounted for 8.4% (n=49) of the patients
A comparison of procedural variables between trans-radial access (TRA) and trans-femoral access (TFA) revealed that there was no statistical significance in procedure time, fluoroscopy time, or the contrast volume
Summary
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality throughout the Western World for men and women alike [1,2]. In patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), studies showed no significant difference between TRA and TFA in terms of contrast amount (CA), procedure time (PT), and fluoroscopy time (FT). The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of TRA versus TFA in women with prior CABG surgery who are undergoing CA/I in regard to CA, PT, and FT
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
