Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
Transradial versus tranfemoral access for coronary angiography in post-CABG patients: a retrospective comparative study
Session:
Painel 8 -Doença Coronária 6
Speaker:
Catia Serena
Congress:
CPC 2020
Topic:
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
Theme:
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
Subtheme:
12.3 Coronary Artery Disease – Diagnostic Methods
Session Type:
Posters
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Cátia Serena; Alberto Rodrigues; Pedro Braga
Abstract
<p><strong>Introdution:</strong></p> <p>With the advancement of technology and equipment, transradial coronary angiography causes less risk of developing local vascular complications, makes patients more comfortable, and turns ambulation possible at an early stage following the procedure, thereby is the first choice for coronary angiography. The rate of patients needing coronary angiography who have undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has increased in the past years. </p> <p><strong>Methods:</strong></p> <p>Retrospective unicentric study compared the data from 351 patients with previous CABG who underwent coronary angiography between 2017 and 2019. The catheterization pathways (right radial, left radial and femoral) were compared in terms of procedure time, fluoroscopy time, radiation exposure and amount of contrast given.</p> <p>The results are presented in mean and standard deviation. </p> <p><strong>Results: </strong></p> <p>The right radial (RR) route was used in 44 cases (12,5%), the left radial (LR) route in 167 (47,6%), and femoral (FR) route in 140 (39,9%). The procedure time was similar between groups: RR 36,34±17,53 min; LR 35,40±14,85 min; FR 36,47±18,10 min. Time of fluoroscopy and radiation exposure were similar between the different approaches (RR 8,96±7,21 min; LR 8,45±5,61 min; FR 7,77±6,12 min). The amount of contrast needed was similar between the different approaches: RR 105,63±46,46 mL; LR 126,24±81,43 mL; FR 127,68±51,10 mL. </p> <p>We compared the radial approach (left and right) <em>versus </em>femoral: procedure time (35,77± 15,5 vs 36,47±18,10; p=0,79); time of fluoroscopy (8.56±5,86 vs 7,77±6,12; p=0,23); radiation exposure (5226,82±3000,84 <em>vs</em> 5324,24±3211; p=0,77); amount of contrast (122,12±76,09 <em>vs</em>127,67±51,08; p=0,456).</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong></p> <p>The bypass graft angiography via radial access was effective in accessing bypass grafts, when compared with transfemoral approach, without increasing the time of procedure nor the amount of contrast and radiation given to the patient. </p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site