Key result
Transradial CABG intervention is associated with fewer vascular complications than transfemoral access with similar contrast volume.
Why the study?
The safety and feasibility of radial versus femoral access during coronary artery intervention in patients with prior CABG surgery were not well established.
Does the transradial approach improve safety and reduce complications compared to the transfemoral approach in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft intervention?
Cohort (n=380)
No
Does the transradial approach improve safety and reduce complications compared to the transfemoral approach in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft intervention?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The transradial approach is a safe and feasible alternative to the transfemoral approach for PCI in prior CABG patients, offering significantly lower vascular access site complications without increasing procedure time.
Background & Objective: To compare the safety and feasibility of using radial versus femoral access during coronary artery intervention of patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Methods: The study was conducted in Ibrahim Cardiac Hospital & Research Institute (ICHRI), Dhaka from January 2013 to December 2015. During the period a total of 380 patients with past CABG surgery underwent diagnostic coronary angiogram (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at our institution. We retrospectively evaluated 98 consecutive patients who underwent graft intervention via the transradial (TRA, n=54) or transfemoral approach (TFA, n=44) route. Baseline clinical characteristics, angiographic characteristics and complications between the two study groups were observed. Result: The baseline clinical characteristics between the two study groups were similar. No significant difference was observed in terms of angiographic characteristics between the two groups. Contrast volume in between the groups was pretty similar (p = 0.267). Procedure time (40±20 min vs. 41±7 min, p=0.36) and fluoroscopy time (11.1±6.5 min vs. 12.5±8.7 min, p=0.19) were almost similar in both access for graft intervention. All PCI attempts were successful in both groups. Stent deployment was significantly more common in the TR access group. No significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of target vessel intervention. There was no major adverse cardiac event during hospitalization. However, the vascular access site complications were significantly lower (p=0.003) in the TRA group. Conclusion: The TRA for coronary artery bypass graft intervention is safe and feasible. Ibrahim Card Med J 2019; 9 (1&2): 23-28
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gomes et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Past coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery (n=380). Transradial approach vs. Transfemoral approach was evaluated on Contrast volume (ml) (p=0.267). The transradial approach for coronary artery bypass graft procedures required similar contrast volume compared to the transfemoral approach (70 vs 72 ml) while significantly reducing vascular access site complications.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: