Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Radiation exposure and patient experience during percutaneous coronary intervention using radial and femoral artery access

  • Cardiac
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate radiation dose and patient discomfort/pain in radial artery access vs femoral artery access in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Dose–area product (DAP) was measured non-randomised for 114 procedures using femoral access and for 55 using radial access. The patients also responded to a questionnaire concerning discomfort and pain during and after the procedure. The mean DAP was 69.8 Gy cm2 using femoral access and 70.5 Gy cm2 using radial access. Separating the access site from confounding factors with a multiple regression, there was a 13% reduction in DAP when using radial access (p=0.038). Procedure times did not differ (p=0.81). Bed confinement was much longer in the femoral access group (448 vs 76 min, p=0.000). With femoral access, there was a significantly higher patient grading for chest (p=0.001) and back pain (p=0.003) during the procedure and for access site (p=0.000) and back pain (p=0.000) after the procedure. Thirty-two femoral access patients (28%) were given morphine-type analgesics in the post-procedure period compared to three radial access patients (5%, p=0.001). DAP does not increase when using radial instead of femoral access and the patients grade discomfort and pain much lower when using radial access. Radial access is thus beneficial to use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2a–f

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fransson S-G, Nylander E (1994) Vascular injury following cardiac catheterization, coronary angiography, and coronary angioplasty. Eur Heart J 15:232–235

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Campeau L (1989) Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn 16:3–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ (1993) Percutaneous transradial artery approach for coronary stent implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn 30:173–178

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cooper CJ, El-Shiekh RA, Cohen DJ, Blaesing L, Burket MW, Basu A, Moore JA (1999) Effect of transradial access on quality of life and cost of cardiac catheterization: a randomized comparison. Am Heart J 138:430–436

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mann JT, Cubeddu G, Arrowood M (1996) Operator radiation exposure in PTCA: comparison of radial and femoral approaches. J Invasive Cardiol 8(Suppl D):22D–25D

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sandborg M, Fransson SG, Pettersson H (2004) Evaluation of patient-absorbed doses during coronary angiography and intervention by femoral and radial artery access. Eur Radiol 14:653–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pipilis A, Ormerod O, Tan LB (1990) Operator radiation exposure and cardiac catheterisation route. Lancet 336:567–568

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ugarte M, Martin-Judez V (1992) Radiation exposure after coronary arteriography. Lancet 340:923

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. ICRP (2000) Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. ICRP Publication 85. Pergamon, Oxford

  10. Geijer H, Beckman K-W, Andersson T, Persliden J (2002) Radiation dose optimization in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). II. Clinical evaluation. Eur Radiol 12:2813–2819

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Geijer H, Beckman K-W, Andersson T, Persliden J (2002) Radiation dose optimization in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). I. Experimental studies. Eur Radiol 12:2571–2581

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McConnell EA (1997) Performing Allen’s test. Nursing (Brux) 27:26

  13. Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall, London

  14. Martin CJ, Farquhar F, Stockdale E, MacDonald S (1994) A study of the relationship between patient dose and size in paediatric radiology. Br J Radiol 67:864–871

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, Slagboom T, van der Wieken R (1997) A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the Access study. J Am Coll Cardiol 29:1269–1275

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stella PR, Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, Slagboom T, van der Wieken R (1997) Incidence and outcome of radial artery occlusion following transradial artery coronary angioplasty. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn 40:156–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Louvard Y, Lefevre T, Allain A, Morice M (2001) Coronary angiography through the radial or the femoral approach: The CARAFE study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 52:181–187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Larrazet F, Dibie A, Philippe F, Palau R, Klausz R, Laborde F (2003) Factors influencing fluoroscopy time and dose-area product values during ad hoc one-vessel percutaneous coronary angioplasty. Br J Radiol 76:473–477

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Neofotistou V, Vano E, Padovani R, Kotre J, Dowling A, Toivonen M, Kottou S, Tsapaki V, Willis S, Bernardi G, Faulkner K (2003) Preliminary reference levels in interventional cardiology. Eur Radiol 13:2259–2263

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hildick-Smith DJ, Walsh JT, Lowe MD, Petch MC (2003) Coronary angiography in the fully anticoagulated patient: the transradial route is successful and safe. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 58:8–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Caputo RP, Simons A, Giambartolomei A, Grant W, Fedele K, Abraham S, Felice P, Reger MJ, Walford GD, Esente P (2001) Safety and efficacy of repeat transradial access for cardiac catheterization procedures. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 54:188–190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Louvard Y, Krol M, Pezzano M, Sheers L, Piechaud JF, Marien C, Benaim R, Lardoux H, Morice MC (1999) Feasibility of routine transradial coronary angiography: a single operator’s experience. J Invasive Cardiol 11:543–548

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Koreny M, Riedmüller E, Nikfardjam M, Siostrzonek P, Müllner M (2004) Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc 291:350–357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Keeling AW, Fisher CA, Haugh KH, Powers ER, Turner MS (2000) Reducing time in bed after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (TIBS III). Am J Crit Care 9:185–187

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Karin Jonsson RN for interviewing the patients after the procedure. We are also grateful to all radiologists, cardiologists and nurses at the section for thoracic radiology for their co-operation and collection of patient dose values. We also thank Anders Magnuson for statistical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Örebro University Hospital, 701 85, Örebro, Sweden

    Håkan Geijer

  2. Department of Medical Physics, Örebro University Hospital, 701 85, Örebro, Sweden

    Jan Persliden

  3. Department of Medicine and Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 85, Linköping, Sweden

    Jan Persliden

Authors
  1. Håkan Geijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Persliden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Håkan Geijer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Geijer, H., Persliden, J. Radiation exposure and patient experience during percutaneous coronary intervention using radial and femoral artery access. Eur Radiol 14, 1674–1680 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2322-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2322-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation