Volume : 08, Issue : 12, December – 2021
Title:
08.DWRIST OR GROIN SAFETY, COMPLICATIONS AND PREDICTORS. FEMORAL VS TRANS RADIAL CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY
Authors :
Dr Mahmood ul Hassan*, Dr Bakhtawar Shah, Dr Shahsawar, Dr Cheragh Hussain, Dr Abdur Rauf, Dr Adnan Khan, Dr Muhammad Hammad Sharif
Abstract :
BACKGROUND: Coronary angiography is a lifesaving procedure but not immune to complication. Complication rate fall dramatically in the last decade but still mild to severe complication pop up globally. The route of angiography, operator experience, selection of patient, tool and hardware of angiography are main predictors of complication. We conducted a study at our center to evaluate the incidence and difference of complication of angiography from radial and femoral route.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the difference in safety and efficacy between radial and femoral route for angiography.
METHODOLOGY: Patients who presented to our center for angiography were admitted in cardiology ward. Patients were prepared for the procedure overnight. Diabetic patient received normal saline over night at rate of 10ml /hour for 12 hours. Patient whose serum creatinine was ≥ 2 mg/dl were excluded from the list. Patient randomly divided into two groups, group1 for radial artery approach and group 2 for femoral artery approach. Those patient in whom the radial route was not accessible due to any reason, cross over to femoral angiography. Patient demographic variable, duration of fluoroscopy, length of procedure, amount of contrast used, any complication during and after procedure, time to mobilization and duration of hospital stay were noted. These variables were analyzed on SPSS version 23 for mean, mode and any statistical significance. P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Total no of patients were 1111. There were 682(61.38%) male and 429(38.61%) female patients. Patient with co-morbidity were 418(37.62%), including diabetes, hypertension and chronic kidney disease. Mean age of patient for femoral procedure was 55.62±10.28 vs. 54.31±1.08 for radial procedure. Diabetic in femoral route procedure were 28.2% and 27.3% in radial route. About 48.5% were hypertensive in femoral route and 45.3% in radial group. Rate of complication were less in female gender for procedure from the radial route. Fluoroscopy time, radiation duration and CKD were noted having negative association with femoral route. Hospital stay was prolonged with femoral route. Pain, artery spasm and more contrast was noted in radial approach.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in major complication between radial and femoral route.
Keywords: CAD, CKD, DAP, BMI, TVD, SVD, DVD, LMS.
Cite This Article:
Please cite this article in press Mahmood ul Hassan et al, Wrist or groin safety, complications and predictors. Femoral vs trans radial coronary angiography., Indo Am. J. P. Sci, 2021; 08(12).
Number of Downloads : 10
References:
1. Sgueglia GA, Burzotta F, Trani C, Todaro D, Talarico GP, Niccoli G, et al. Comparative assessment of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor-eluting stents in the treatment of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: the CASTOR-Bifurcation registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Mar 1;77(4):503-9. doi: 10.1002/ccd.22714.
2. Hessel SJ, Adams DF, Abrams HL. Complications of angiographyRadiology. 1981 Feb;138(2):273-81. doi: 10.1148/radiology.138.2.7455105.
3. Hoole SP, et al. Recent advances in percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart. 2020 Sep;106(18):1380-1386.doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2019-315707. Epub 2020 Jun 10.
4. Boukhris M, Hillani A, Adjibodou B, Mansour S. The Scary Bubbles: Management of an Unusual Complication of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Oct 14;12(19):e169-e171. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.07.024.
5. Tavakol M, Ashraf S, Brener SJ. Risks and complications of coronary angiography: a comprehensive review. Glob J Health Sci. 2012 Jan 1;4(1):65-93. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v4n1p65
6. Üreyen ÇM, Coşansu K, Vural MG, Şahin SE, Kocayigit I, Pabuccu MT.et al. Is trans-radial approach related to an increased risk of radiation exposure in patients who underwent diagnostic coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention? (The SAKARYA study). Anatol J Cardiol. 2019 Jun;22(1):5-12. doi: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2019.06013.
7. Bernat I, Horak D, Stasek J, Mates M, Pesek J, Ostadal P, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 18;63(10):964-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc. 2013. 08.1651.
8. Omedè P, Bertaina M, Cerrato E, Rubio L, Nuñez-Gil I, Gili S. et al. Radial and femoral access for interventional fellows performing diagnostic coronary angiographies: the LEARN-Cardiogroup II, a prospective multicenter study. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2018 Nov;19(11):650-654. doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000716.
9. Inagaki E, Farber A, Siracuse JJ, Mell MW, Rybin DV, Doros G. Routine Use of Ultrasound Guidance in Femoral Arterial Access for Peripheral Vascular Intervention Decreases Groin Hematoma Rates in High-Volume Surgeons. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018 Aug;51:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.02.008. Epub 2018 Apr 13.
10. Yuan H, Sun J, Zhou Z, Qi H, Wang M, Dong D, Wu X. Diagnosis and treatment of acquired arteriovenous fistula after lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Int Angiol. 2019 Feb;38(1):10-16. doi: 10.23736/S0392-9590.19.04063-X. Epub 2019 Feb 5
11. Sajnani N, Bogart DB. Retroperitoneal hemorrhage as a complication of percutaneous intervention: report of 2 cases and review of the literature. Cardiovasc Med J. 2013;7:16-22. doi: 10.2174/1874192401307010016. Epub 2013 Feb 28
12. Sławin J, Kubler P, Szczepański A, Piątek J, Stępkowski M, Reczuch K. Radial artery occlusion after percutaneous coronary interventions – an underestimated issue. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2013;9(4):353-61.doi: 10.5114/pwki.2013.38865. Epub 2013 Nov 18.
13. Gedela M, Kumar V, Shaikh KA, Stys A, Stys T. Bradycardia during Transradial Cardiac Catheterization due to Catheter Manipulation: Resolved by Catheter Removal. Case Rep Vasc Med. 2017;2017:8538149. doi: 10.1155/2017/8538149.
14. Hessel SJ, Adams DF, Abrams HL. Complications of angiography. Radiology. 1981 Feb;138(2):273-81.doi: 10.1148/radiology.138.2.7455105.
15. Le May M, Wells G, So D, Chong AY, Dick A, Froeschl M,et al. Safety and Efficacy of Femoral Access vs Radial Access in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The SAFARI-STEMI Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Feb 1;5(2):126-134.doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4852.
16. Brener MI, Bush A, Miller JM, Hasan RK. Influence of radial versus femoral access site on coronary angiography and intervention outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Dec 1;90(7):1093-1104.doi: 10.1002/ccd.27043.
17. Uddin M, Bundhoo S, Mitra R, Ossei-Gerning N, Morris K, Anderson R. et.al Femoral Access PCI in a Default Radial Center Identifies High-Risk Patients With Poor Outcomes. J Interv Cardiol. 2015 Oct;28(5):485-92. doi: 10.1111/joic.12226.
18. Karrowni W, Vyas A, Giacomino B, Schweizer M, Blevins A, Girotra S. et.al. Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Aug;6(8):814-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.04.010.
19. Mehta SR, Jolly SS, Cairns J, Niemela K, Rao SV, Cheema AN. Et.al Effects of radial versus femoral artery access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 18;60(24):2490-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.050.
20. Bauer T, Hochadel M, Brachmann J, Schächinger V, Boekstegers P, Zrenner B. Use and outcome of radial versus femoral approach for primary PCI in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction without cardiogenic shock: results from the ALKK PCI registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Oct;86 Suppl 1:S8-14. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25987.
21. Deora S. Transradial versus transfemoral approach in STEMI: Choice is with the operator. Indian Heart J. 2020 Jul-Aug;72(4):327-328. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2020.06.006.
22. Andò G, Gragnano F, Calabrò P, Valgimigli M.Radial vs femoral access for the prevention of acute kidney injury (AKI) after coronary angiography or intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Dec 1;92(7):E518-E526. doi: 10.1002/ ccd. 27903.
23. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, Niemelä K, Xavier D, Widimsky P. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011 Apr 23;377(9775):1409-20. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60404-2.
24. Soydan E , Akın M . Coronary angiography using the left distal radial approach – An alternative site to conventional radial coronary angiography. Anatol J Cardiol. 2018 Apr; 19(4): 243–248.
25. Plourde G, Abdelaal E, MacHaalany J , Rimac G et al. Comparison of radiation exposure during transradial diagnostic coronary angiography with single or multi catheters approach. JCad.2016 (10) ;112-4