Comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention in patients with coronary bypass grafts

Abstract Objective We sought to compare the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention in patients with coronary artery bypass grafts in terms of volume of radiographic contrast administered during cardiac catheterization, fluoroscopy time, and total procedure time. Background The transradial access has been increasingly used as an alternative to transfemoral. Several studies demonstrated that such access is associated with lower rates of vascular and bleeding complications. Although coronary artery bypass graft patients comprise a significant portion of the coronary artery disease population, this subpopulation was often excluded or underrepresented in transradial access studies. Methods Single center, retrospective cohort study. In the study period, all patients who had previously undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery and had received cardiac catheterization at our institution were included in the study population. Results A total of 2153 patients were included in the study. From these, 1937 were performed by femoral artery and 216 by transradial approach. Compared to the transfemoral approach, transradial access was associated with lower contrast use (136.3 ± 74.4 ml vs. 122.8 ± 59.1 ml, p = 0.035) and longer fluoroscopy time (13.9 ± 25.6 min vs. 15.9 ± 14.3 min, p  Conclusion Diagnostic and interventional catheterization through the transradial approach in patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery was associated with less contrast amount used and longer fluoroscopy time compared to the transfemoral approach. The transradial approach was also associated with lower crossover rates and less vascular complications.