Comparison of Mean Fluoroscopic Time and Mean Contrast Volume Used in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography by the Transfemoral Versus Transradial Route.
coronary angiography
transfemoral
transradial
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Nov 2020
25 Nov 2020
Historique:
entrez:
4
1
2021
pubmed:
5
1
2021
medline:
5
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Introduction The prolonged fluoroscopic time during coronary angiography results in a higher radiation dose delivered to patients. Similarly, a higher contrast volume used is associated with higher rates of contrast-induced nephropathy. This study was designed to identify the better technique in terms of lesser fluoroscopic time and volume of contrast used during the procedure. Objective To compare mean fluoroscopic time and mean contrast volume used in patients undergoing coronary angiography through the transfemoral versus transradial route. Methods A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at the department of cardiology, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) Islamabad between June 2017 and December 2017. Ninety (n=90) patients planned for coronary angiography between 30 and 70 years of age were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to Group A (transfemoral route group) and Group B (transradial route group). Fluoroscopic time (minutes) and contrast volume (milliliters) used were measured in each patient. Results The mean contrast volume used in Group A was 70.4 ml (SD=8.7) and in Group B, it was 90.1 ml (SD=9.8) (P<0.001). The mean fluoroscopic time in Group A was 5.1 min (SD=1.2), and in group B, it was 8.6 min (SD=1.2) (P<0.001). Similar trends were noted when data were stratified with respect to age and gender. Conclusion The mean fluoroscopic time and the mean contrast volume were significantly less in patients where coronary angiography was performed through the transfemoral route than through the transradial route in this study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33391933
doi: 10.7759/cureus.11700
pmc: PMC7769769
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e11700Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020, Hasrat et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998 Jun;44(2):147-52
pubmed: 9637436
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Jul 1;76(1):79-84
pubmed: 20578091
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006 Jan;67(1):12-6
pubmed: 16331696
Eur Radiol. 2004 Apr;14(4):653-8
pubmed: 14618362
J Vasc Nurs. 2016 Sep;34(3):106-15
pubmed: 27568318
Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1998 Feb;91(2):209-15
pubmed: 9749247
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Apr 1;75(5):695-9
pubmed: 20146306
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009 Jun 1;73(7):883-7
pubmed: 19455660
Am J Cardiol. 2010 Oct 1;106(7):936-40
pubmed: 20854953
J Interv Cardiol. 2013 Apr;26(2):208-13
pubmed: 23190016
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000 Apr;49(4):357-62
pubmed: 10751755
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006 Jun;67(6):870-8
pubmed: 16649233
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Nov;6(11):1138-44
pubmed: 24139930
J Invasive Cardiol. 1999 Sep;11(9):543-8
pubmed: 10745593
Anadolu Kardiyol Derg. 2014 Mar;14(2):140-6
pubmed: 24449626
Heart. 2009 Mar;95(5):410-5
pubmed: 18977799
Cardiol Res Pract. 2016;2016:1623197
pubmed: 27882261
Anadolu Kardiyol Derg. 2011 Nov;11(7):607-12
pubmed: 21959874
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 May;29(6):1269-75
pubmed: 9137223
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 18;60(24):2481-9
pubmed: 22858390