Transradial coronary intervention

Comparison of the left and right radial artery approach

Jang Young Kim, Junghan Yoon, Il Hyung Jung, Hee Sung Wang, Hyun Sook Jung, Byungsu Yoo, Seunghwan Lee, Kyung Hoon Choe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Objectives: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the left transradial approach as compared to the right radial approach when performing transradial coronary intervention. Subjects and Methods: We performed the transradial coronary intervention in 711 cases via the left approach (Lt. group) and in 614 cases via the right approach (Rt. group) for patients with a normal Allen's test of both arms. We evaluated the procedural success rate, the crossover rate, the puncture time, the total procedural duration, the fluoros copy time, the amount of contrast agent used and the local vascular complications of both groups. Results: The baseline clinical and angiographic profiles were comparable between both groups. The puncture time, the amount of contrast agent used, choice of the guide catheter and local vascular complications were similar for the two groups. There was no difference in the procedural success rate (Rt. group; 96.4% vs. Lt. group; 96.2%, p=NS). However, there was tendency for a higher success rate via radial access for the Lt. group than for the Rt. group (Rt. group; 91.9% vs. Lt. group; 93.5%, p=0.056). The crossover rate was lower for the Lt. group than for the Rt. group (2.7 % vs. 4.6%, respectively; p=0.04). The total procedural time (32.3±15.4. vs. 30.7±17.6 min, respectively; p=0.03) and fluoroscopy time (16.9±12.6 vs. 13.9±7.9 min, respectively; p<0.01) were shorter in the Lt. group. The number of guide catheters used was higher in the Rt. group compared to the Lt. group (1.21±0.48 vs. 1.08±0.33, respectively; p=0.04). Conclusion: The left radial approach may provide increased procedural efficacy for transradial PCI compared to the right radial approach along with similar complications.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)780-785
Number of pages6
JournalKorean Circulation Journal
Volume36
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Radial Artery
Punctures
Contrast Media
Vascular Access Devices
Fluoroscopy
Blood Vessels
Catheters
Safety

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Internal Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Kim, Jang Young ; Yoon, Junghan ; Jung, Il Hyung ; Wang, Hee Sung ; Jung, Hyun Sook ; Yoo, Byungsu ; Lee, Seunghwan ; Choe, Kyung Hoon. / Transradial coronary intervention : Comparison of the left and right radial artery approach. In: Korean Circulation Journal. 2006 ; Vol. 36, No. 12. pp. 780-785.
@article{5b1f9f9907c145c0a6147216fd8d0207,
title = "Transradial coronary intervention: Comparison of the left and right radial artery approach",
abstract = "Background and Objectives: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the left transradial approach as compared to the right radial approach when performing transradial coronary intervention. Subjects and Methods: We performed the transradial coronary intervention in 711 cases via the left approach (Lt. group) and in 614 cases via the right approach (Rt. group) for patients with a normal Allen's test of both arms. We evaluated the procedural success rate, the crossover rate, the puncture time, the total procedural duration, the fluoros copy time, the amount of contrast agent used and the local vascular complications of both groups. Results: The baseline clinical and angiographic profiles were comparable between both groups. The puncture time, the amount of contrast agent used, choice of the guide catheter and local vascular complications were similar for the two groups. There was no difference in the procedural success rate (Rt. group; 96.4{\%} vs. Lt. group; 96.2{\%}, p=NS). However, there was tendency for a higher success rate via radial access for the Lt. group than for the Rt. group (Rt. group; 91.9{\%} vs. Lt. group; 93.5{\%}, p=0.056). The crossover rate was lower for the Lt. group than for the Rt. group (2.7 {\%} vs. 4.6{\%}, respectively; p=0.04). The total procedural time (32.3±15.4. vs. 30.7±17.6 min, respectively; p=0.03) and fluoroscopy time (16.9±12.6 vs. 13.9±7.9 min, respectively; p<0.01) were shorter in the Lt. group. The number of guide catheters used was higher in the Rt. group compared to the Lt. group (1.21±0.48 vs. 1.08±0.33, respectively; p=0.04). Conclusion: The left radial approach may provide increased procedural efficacy for transradial PCI compared to the right radial approach along with similar complications.",
author = "Kim, {Jang Young} and Junghan Yoon and Jung, {Il Hyung} and Wang, {Hee Sung} and Jung, {Hyun Sook} and Byungsu Yoo and Seunghwan Lee and Choe, {Kyung Hoon}",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4070/kcj.2006.36.12.780",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "780--785",
journal = "Korean Circulation Journal",
issn = "1738-5520",
publisher = "Korean Society of Circulation",
number = "12",

}

Transradial coronary intervention : Comparison of the left and right radial artery approach. / Kim, Jang Young; Yoon, Junghan; Jung, Il Hyung; Wang, Hee Sung; Jung, Hyun Sook; Yoo, Byungsu; Lee, Seunghwan; Choe, Kyung Hoon.

In: Korean Circulation Journal, Vol. 36, No. 12, 01.01.2006, p. 780-785.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transradial coronary intervention

T2 - Comparison of the left and right radial artery approach

AU - Kim, Jang Young

AU - Yoon, Junghan

AU - Jung, Il Hyung

AU - Wang, Hee Sung

AU - Jung, Hyun Sook

AU - Yoo, Byungsu

AU - Lee, Seunghwan

AU - Choe, Kyung Hoon

PY - 2006/1/1

Y1 - 2006/1/1

N2 - Background and Objectives: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the left transradial approach as compared to the right radial approach when performing transradial coronary intervention. Subjects and Methods: We performed the transradial coronary intervention in 711 cases via the left approach (Lt. group) and in 614 cases via the right approach (Rt. group) for patients with a normal Allen's test of both arms. We evaluated the procedural success rate, the crossover rate, the puncture time, the total procedural duration, the fluoros copy time, the amount of contrast agent used and the local vascular complications of both groups. Results: The baseline clinical and angiographic profiles were comparable between both groups. The puncture time, the amount of contrast agent used, choice of the guide catheter and local vascular complications were similar for the two groups. There was no difference in the procedural success rate (Rt. group; 96.4% vs. Lt. group; 96.2%, p=NS). However, there was tendency for a higher success rate via radial access for the Lt. group than for the Rt. group (Rt. group; 91.9% vs. Lt. group; 93.5%, p=0.056). The crossover rate was lower for the Lt. group than for the Rt. group (2.7 % vs. 4.6%, respectively; p=0.04). The total procedural time (32.3±15.4. vs. 30.7±17.6 min, respectively; p=0.03) and fluoroscopy time (16.9±12.6 vs. 13.9±7.9 min, respectively; p<0.01) were shorter in the Lt. group. The number of guide catheters used was higher in the Rt. group compared to the Lt. group (1.21±0.48 vs. 1.08±0.33, respectively; p=0.04). Conclusion: The left radial approach may provide increased procedural efficacy for transradial PCI compared to the right radial approach along with similar complications.

AB - Background and Objectives: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the left transradial approach as compared to the right radial approach when performing transradial coronary intervention. Subjects and Methods: We performed the transradial coronary intervention in 711 cases via the left approach (Lt. group) and in 614 cases via the right approach (Rt. group) for patients with a normal Allen's test of both arms. We evaluated the procedural success rate, the crossover rate, the puncture time, the total procedural duration, the fluoros copy time, the amount of contrast agent used and the local vascular complications of both groups. Results: The baseline clinical and angiographic profiles were comparable between both groups. The puncture time, the amount of contrast agent used, choice of the guide catheter and local vascular complications were similar for the two groups. There was no difference in the procedural success rate (Rt. group; 96.4% vs. Lt. group; 96.2%, p=NS). However, there was tendency for a higher success rate via radial access for the Lt. group than for the Rt. group (Rt. group; 91.9% vs. Lt. group; 93.5%, p=0.056). The crossover rate was lower for the Lt. group than for the Rt. group (2.7 % vs. 4.6%, respectively; p=0.04). The total procedural time (32.3±15.4. vs. 30.7±17.6 min, respectively; p=0.03) and fluoroscopy time (16.9±12.6 vs. 13.9±7.9 min, respectively; p<0.01) were shorter in the Lt. group. The number of guide catheters used was higher in the Rt. group compared to the Lt. group (1.21±0.48 vs. 1.08±0.33, respectively; p=0.04). Conclusion: The left radial approach may provide increased procedural efficacy for transradial PCI compared to the right radial approach along with similar complications.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846890450&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33846890450&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4070/kcj.2006.36.12.780

DO - 10.4070/kcj.2006.36.12.780

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 780

EP - 785

JO - Korean Circulation Journal

JF - Korean Circulation Journal

SN - 1738-5520

IS - 12

ER -