SAFETY, EFFICACY AND FEASIBILITY OF TRANS RADIAL APPROACH IN COMPARISON WITH TRANSFEMORAL APPROACH IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING CORONARY CATHETERIZATION

Volume 13 , Issue 2 , July 2025 , Pages 99-106

Authors

Kamaran Rauf Karadakhi 1 ; Asan Baram Hasan 2 ; Hemn Hassan Mohammad 2 ; Razan Babarasul Jalal 3

1 Shar Hospital, Ministry of Health, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

2 Cardiology Trainee, Ministry of Health-Sulaimani Cardiac Center, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

3 Sulaimani Radiology Center, Ministry of Health, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

DOI logo 10.17656/jsmc.10402

Keywords

Abstract

Background
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention has been done traditionally through Transfemoral route. Trans Radial
route is coming up in the practice. We compared Trans Radial with Transfemoral accesses for ease of
operability, time of procedure, complications, and failure rates through a cross sectional study.
Objectives
To assess the efficacy, feasibility, safety and procedural variables in Trans radial approach compared with the
Transfemoral Approach in patients undergoing coronary artery catheterization.
Patients and Methods
A total of 180 patients with both chronic and acute coronary syndromes were enrolled in this study, one
hundred forty 140 cases with Radial, 28 of whom were crossed to Femoral access (hence 112 Radials with 108
Right Radial and 4 Left Radial) and 68 cases with Femoral access.
Results
Procedural time between Trans Radial and Transfemoral accesses were similar (17.39±10.33 vs 19.68±16.62
minutes P-value 0.36) respectively while among Femoral crossover group was higher (33.50±20.30 minutes
P-value 0.01). The Fluoroscopy time was (5.51±4.70 in Trans Radial Vs. 7.18 ±7.65 minutes in Transfemoral
P-value 0.07) were similar in both groups. Post procedure access site complications seen in (9% in Trans
Radial compared to 7.35% in Transfemoral, P-value 0.048), Access site Hematoma being the most common
one (6.25% in Trans Radial vs 4.4% in Transfemoral), Non-flow limiting dissections occurred in (0.89% in
Trans Radial VS 1.4% Transfemoral), Radial artery perforation occurred in 1.78%, 1.4% of patients in Femoral
group had Femoral artery perforation and had major bleeding.
Conclusion
The overall local complications were lower in Transfemoral access, except for major bleeding which is still
a big concern. Both vascular Access techniques should not be considered opposite or mutually exclusive, but
rather provide the Interventionist a wide spectrum of the therapeutic options.

Statistics
  • Article view471
  • Downloads0
  • First online26 July 2025
  • Published at26 July 2025

  • RIS
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • Mendeley
  • APA (7th edition)
  • MLA (9th edition)
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • Vancouver