TRANSRADIAL VERSUS TRANSFEMORAL ARTERIAL APPROACH: A STUDY ON EFFICIENCY AND PATIENT COMFORT

Abstract

The aim of this research is to perform a comprehensive comparative analysis of  transradial (TR) and transfemoral (TF) arterial approaches in conducting diagnostic coronary angiographies. The research involved a total of 240 participants, categorized into two cohorts. Group one included 121 participants who received coronary angiography via TR arterial approach, while group two comprised 119 participants who were administered the procedure via TF arterial approach. The MannWhitney U test was employed to assess the research objectives. Additionally, Spearman's correlation coefficient was utilized to evaluate the relationships between the variables observed in the research. This research confirms that TR approach results in longer procedures compared to TF approach. Despite the longer duration and higher radiation exposure with TR approach, there was no significant difference in the amount of contrast agent used between TR and TF approaches. There was no significant difference in hospitalization duration between patients undergoing TR and TF approaches. Patient comfort during and after the procedure was significantly better with TR approach. The average cost of materials used was higher for patients undergoing TR approach compared to TF approach, making TR approach about 15% more expensive on average. The results of this research indicate that both methods demonstrate no notable difference in the volume of contrast agent administered or in the occurrence rate of complications. However, TF arterial approach leads to reduced procedure times and lower radiation exposure, whereas TR arterial approach enhances patient comfort.