Comparison of percutaneous left and right radial approach for coronary angiography in Elderlyaged patients
10.3760/cma.j.jssn.1673-4904.2016.11.003
- VernacularTitle:老年患者经皮左、右桡动脉入路冠状动脉造影的比较
- Author:
Lijia ZHAO
;
Hongyu HU
;
Qiang FU
;
Wei CHEN
;
Dezhao WANG
;
Buxing CHEN
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Angiography;
Coronary vessels;
Radial artery;
Aged
- From:
Chinese Journal of Postgraduates of Medicine
2016;39(11):969-972
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To explore the safety and feasibility of coronary angiography (CAG) via percutaneous left radial artery approach (LRA) compared with right radial artery approach (RRA) in aged patients, and determine whether LRA is a valid alternative for CAG. Methods A total of 502 consecutive patients who were aged 65 or older underwent diagnostic CAG were recruited and randomized to the LRA group (240 patients) or RRA group (262 patients). The study end points included total procedural duration, coronary time, fluoroscopy time, dose of radiation including cumulative air kerma and dose area product, contrast volume, and the incidence of vascular complications. Results Coronary procedural success rate was 96.2%(231/240) in LRA group and 96.2%(252/262) in RRA group. There was no significant difference (P>0.05). The radial cannulation time, fluoroscopy time, look through time, dose of radiation, contrast volume and the percentage of hydrophilic wire used in two group had no significant difference (P > 0.05). The catheter in place time in LRA was significantly shorter than that in RRA group:(2.7 ± 2.5) min vs. (3.3 ± 3.3) min, P=0.036). There was a trend toward shorter procedural duration in LRA group than that in RRA group, but there was no significant difference: (13.3 ± 6.1) min vs. (14.3 ± 6.2) min, P=0.075. Conclusions LRA approach has similar safety and feasibility in terms of performing coronary angiography compared with RRA.It seems to be a feasible alternative for CAG in aged patients.
