Key result
Transradial access for coronary angiography in patients with chronic coronary syndrome was associated with a similar inflammatory response compared to transfemoral access.
Why the study?
Although transradial access is widely preferred for coronary angiography, the inflammatory response to coronary angiography and how transradial access compares to transfemoral access in triggering inflammation remained to be evaluated.
Does transradial access compared to transfemoral access trigger more inflammation in patients with chronic coronary syndrome undergoing coronary angiography?
Observational (n=92)
No
Does transradial access compared to transfemoral access trigger more inflammation in patients with chronic coronary syndrome undergoing coronary angiography?
Transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography trigger a similar, non-significant inflammatory response, though transradial access is associated with longer fluoroscopy times.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports similar inflammatory safety for transradial access in chronic coronary syndrome; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Background: Most of the institutions accept the Transradial Access (TRA) as the first approach for patients undergoing Coronary Angiography (CAG) and Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (PCI). Several studies clearly revealed endothelial injury of coronary arteries triggers inflammatory response. In this study, we aimed to evaluate inflammatory respond to CAG and to compare the inflammatory response of TRA and Transfemoral Access (TFA). Methods: In this single-center prospective study 140 consecutive patients presenting with (Chronical Coronary Syndrome) CCS and underwent transradial or transfemoral CAG between December 2017 and December 2018 were included. After exclusions, left 92 patients were divided into two equal groups as TRA and TFA. The primary endpoints were 2nd hour Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNFα), 48th hour high-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hs-CRP), complication rates, amount of contrast medium, procedure time and fluoroscopy time. Results: Basal characteristics of TRA and TFA groups were similar. A comparison of variables demonstrated that there was no statistical significance in increase in inflammatory markers (TNFα, hs-CRP), complication rates, amount of contrast media and procedure time. In contrast, TRA was associated longer fluoroscopy time and higher X-ray dosage, although statistically insignificant. CAG caused a similar increase in hs-CRP in both groups, insignificantly. Conclusion: In contrast to previous studies reporting a higher inflammatory response with TRA, this study demonstrates that inflammatory response caused by CAG is unrelated to access site and similar in TRA and TFA. Longer fluoroscopy time, higher X-ray dosage and longer procedure time in the TRA group indicate the importance of carefully selecting the angiographic route especially in patients with chronic heart failure, chronic renal impairment and malignancy risk. Also, these parameters place importance for physicians own health and woman planning pregnancy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çetinarslan et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Chronic Coronary Syndrome (n=92). Transradial Access (TRA) vs. Transfemoral Access (TFA) was evaluated on 2nd hour Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNFα), 48th hour high-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hs-CRP), complication rates, amount of contrast medium, procedure time and fluoroscopy time. Transradial access for coronary angiography in patients with chronic coronary syndrome was associated with a similar inflammatory response compared to transfemoral access.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: