European Radiology

, Volume 14, Issue 9, pp 1674–1680

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

Cardiac

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.

Keywords

Coronary intervention Coronary angiography, technology Coronary vessels, transluminal angioplasty Radiations, exposure to patients Diagnostic radiology 

References

  1. 1.
    Fransson S-G, Nylander E (1994) Vascular injury following cardiac catheterization, coronary angiography, and coronary angioplasty. Eur Heart J 15:232–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campeau L (1989) Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn 16:3–7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ (1993) Percutaneous transradial artery approach for coronary stent implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn 30:173–178Google Scholar
  4. 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 138:430–436PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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–25DPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 14:653–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pipilis A, Ormerod O, Tan LB (1990) Operator radiation exposure and cardiac catheterisation route. Lancet 336:567–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ugarte M, Martin-Judez V (1992) Radiation exposure after coronary arteriography. Lancet 340:923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ICRP (2000) Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. ICRP Publication 85. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 12:2813–2819PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 12:2571–2581PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McConnell EA (1997) Performing Allen’s test. Nursing (Brux) 27:26Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 67:864–871PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 29:1269–1275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 40:156–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 52:181–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 76:473–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 13:2259–2263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 58:8–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 54:188–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 11:543–548PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 291:350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 9:185–187PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyÖrebro University HospitalÖrebroSweden
  2. 2.Department of Medical PhysicsÖrebro University HospitalÖrebroSweden
  3. 3.Department of Medicine and Care, Faculty of Health SciencesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations