Transradial vs. Transfemoral Approach in Cardiac Catheterization: A Literature Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The main objective of this review paper is to study the comparison between transradial and transfemoral approach in catheterization. Transradial and transfemoral are two main approaches which are used as a diagnostic and therapeutic purpose in catheterization. The transradial approach in interventional cardiology is safe, effective, and feasible as compared to the transfemoral approach. The aim of this study is to compare pros and cons of transradial vs. transfemoral approach in catheterization.

We conducted this systematic review on the role of transradial vs. transfemoral catheterization. The articles included real human data on interventional approaches. Reviews on these strategies were conducted in PubMed, medical literature analysis and retrieval system online (MEDLINE), Cochrane, Medscape and National Institute of Health. To maintain a high standard of review, studies published in all non-famous journals were excluded.

Data collected from the studies have suggested that transradial approach has less bleeding complications, cost effective, decreased hospital mortality rate, and less access site complications as compared to transfemoral approach. However, longer procedural duration and radiation exposure are still concerns regarding transradial approach.

The findings of the present study show that transradial approach in catheterization is safe, effective, and feasible as compared to the transfemoral approach. However, duration and radiation exposure are higher in the transradial access. Several studies suggest that the modern approach overweight in benefits with the comparison to the classical approach.

Related collections

Most cited references 38

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Sanjit Jolly, Shoaib Amlani, Martial Hamon … (2009)

Small randomized trials have demonstrated that radial access reduces access site complications compared to a femoral approach. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine if radial access reduces major bleeding and as a result can reduce death and ischemic events compared to femoral access. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from 1980 to April 2008. Relevant conference abstracts from 2005 to April 2008 were searched. Randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access coronary angiography or intervention that reported major bleeding, death, myocardial infarction, and procedural or fluoroscopy time were included. A fixed-effects model was used with a random effects for sensitivity analysis. Radial access reduced major bleeding by 73% compared to femoral access (0.05% vs 2.3%, OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.16, 0.45], P < .001). There was a trend for reductions in the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (2.5% vs 3.8%, OR 0.71 [95% CI 0.49-1.01], P = .058) as well as death (1.2% vs 1.8% OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.42-1.30], P = .29). There was a trend for higher rate of inability to the cross lesion with wire, balloon, or stent during percutaneous coronary intervention with radial access (4.7% vs 3.4% OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.87, 1.94], P = .21). Radial access reduced hospital stay by 0.4 days (95% CI 0.2-0.5, P = .0001). Radial access reduced major bleeding and there was a corresponding trend for reduction in ischemic events compared to femoral access. Large randomized trials are needed to confirm the benefit of radial access on death and ischemic events.

0 comments Cited 158 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study.

Ferdinand Kiemeneij, Gert Laarman, Diego Odekerken … (1997)

This study sought to compare procedural and clinical outcomes of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) performed with 6F guiding catheters introduced through the radial, brachial or femoral arteries. Transradial PTCA has been demonstrated to be an effective and safe alternative to transfemoral PTCA; however, no randomized data are currently available. A randomized comparison between transradial, transbrachial and transfemoral PTCA with 6F guiding catheters was performed in 900 patients. Primary end points were entry site and angioplasty related. Secondary end points were quantitative coronary analysis after PTCA, procedural and fluoroscopy times, consumption of angioplasty equipment and length of hospital stay. Successful coronary cannulation was achieved in 279 (93.0%), 287 (95.7%) and 299 (99.7%) patients randomized to undergo PTCA by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches, respectively. PTCA success was achieved in 91.7%, 90.7% and 90.7% (p = NS) of patients, with 88.0%, 87.7% and 90.0% event free at 1-month follow-up, respectively (p = NS). Major entry site complications were encountered in seven patients (2.3%) in the transbrachial group, six (2.0%) in the transfemoral group and none in the transradial group (p = 0.035). Transradial PTCA led to asymptomatic loss of radial pulsations in nine patients (3%). Procedural and fluoroscopy times were similar, as were consumption of guiding and balloon catheters and length of hospital stay ([mean +/- SD] 1.5 +/- 2.5, 1.8 +/- 3.8 and 1.8 +/- 4.2 days, respectively). With experience, procedural and clinical outcomes of PTCA were similar for the three subgroups, but access failure is more common during transradial PTCA. Major access site complications were more frequently encountered after transbrachial and transfemoral PTCA.

0 comments Cited 113 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Prevention of radial artery occlusion-patent hemostasis evaluation trial (PROPHET study): a randomized comparison of traditional versus patency documented hemostasis after transradial catheterization.

Marie-Florence Thomas, Samir Bipin Pancholy, Tejas Patel … (2008)

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of hemostasis with patency in avoiding radial artery occlusion after transradial catheterization. Radial artery occlusion is an infrequent but discouraging complication of transradial access. It is related to factors such as sheath to artery ratio and is less common in patients receiving heparin. Despite being clinically silent in most cases, it limits future transradial access. Four hundred thirty-six consecutive patients undergoing transradial catheterization were prospectively enrolled in the study. Two hundred nineteen patients were randomized to group I, and underwent conventional pressure application for hemostasis. Two hundred seventeen patients were randomized to group II and underwent pressure application confirming radial artery patency using Barbeau's test. Radial artery patency was studied at 24 hr and 30 days using Barbeau's test. Thirty-eight patients had evidence of radial artery occlusion at 24 hr. Twenty patients had persistent evidence of radial artery occlusion at 1 month. Group II, with documented patency during hemostatic compression, had a statistically and clinically lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (59% decrease at 24 hr and 75% decrease at 30 days, P < 0.05), compared with patients in group I. Low body weight patients were at significantly higher risk of radial artery occlusion. No procedural variables were found to be associated with radial artery occlusion. Patent hemostasis is highly effective in reducing radial artery occlusion after radial access and guided compression should be performed to maintain radial artery patency at the time of hemostasis, to prevent future radial artery occlusion. Copyright 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

0 comments Cited 109 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Cureus

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Cureus

Journal ID (issn): 2168-8184

Title: Cureus

Publisher: Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )

ISSN (Electronic): 2168-8184

Publication date (Electronic, pub): 3 June 2017

Publication date (Electronic, collection): June 2017

Volume: 9

Issue: 6

Electronic Location Identifier: e1309

Affiliations

[1 ] Internal medicine, University of health science Lahore

[2 ] Neurosciences & Psychology, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology

[3 ] Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Rush University Medical Center

[4 ] Department of Internal Medicine, King Edward Medical University Lahore, Pakistan

[5 ] Public Health, University of Oklahoma

Author notes

Ibrar Anjum ibrar.anjum@ 123456gmail.com

Article

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.1309

PMC ID: 5493462

PubMed ID: 28690943

SO-VID: e3093d7c-630f-4f9f-82db-a30bcb349289

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

History

Date received : 13 May 2017

Date accepted : 3 June 2017

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.