Comparison of Radiation Dose and Contrast Dye Volume Comparison in Coronary Angiography Via Femoral and Radial Routes: Comparison of Radiation Dose and Contrast Dye

Hidayat Ullah; Muhammad Shafique Arshad; Zabih Ullah; Abdul Rehman; Muhammad Khalil; Nouman Khan

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v4i09.1109

Authors

Hidayat Ullah Cardiac Center, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad, Pakistan
Muhammad Shafique Arshad Cardiac Center, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad, Pakistan
Zabih Ullah Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan
Abdul Rehman Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Muhammad Khalil Cardiac Center, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad, Pakistan
Nouman Khan Cardiac Center, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v4i09.1109

Keywords:

Coronary Angiography, Radiation Dose, Contrast Dye Volume

Abstract

Coronary angiography is a common procedure used to identify coronary artery disease. Whether femoral or radial vascular access is employed may impact radiation dosage and contrast dye utilization. This study examined radiation exposure and contrast dye volume in femoral and radial approach in patients undergoing coronary angiography. Objective: To assess and compare the radiation dosage and contrast dye volume between patients having coronary angiography through the femoral and radial routes. Methods: A prospective study included 408 consecutive coronary angiography patients from April 10 to August 31, 2023. The remaining 206 patients were treated radially, while 202 were treated femorally. We examined radiation exposure, dose area product (DAP), and contrast dye volume among groups. Results: Radial and femoral groups had similar mean ages (64.4±12.1 vs. 64.8±11.6, p=0.86). The radial group had 60.67% men versus 71.3% in femoral group. Radial and femoral catheterization radiation doses were 1.199 Gy (0.677-2.001) and 1.218 Gy (0.696-2.207), respectively, with a p-value of 0.88 showing no group radiation exposure difference. The group analysis found no hemorrhagic consequences from radial or femoral catheterization, coronarography, or angioplasty. Conclusions: The study participants noticed non-significant differences in contrast dye volume and radiation dose between femoral and radial coronary angiography.

References

Zhong HS, Liu YP, Zhou DJ, Qi Y. Use of coronary CT angiography in the diagnosis of patients with suspected coronary artery disease: findings and clinical indications, Journal of Geriatric Cardiology. 2012 Jun; 9(2): 115–22. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1263.2012.01041. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1263.2012.01041

Michael TT, Alomar M, Papayannis A, Mogabgab O, Patel VG, Rangan BV, et al., A randomized comparison of the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary artery bypass graft angiography and intervention: the RADIAL-CABG Trial (RADIAL Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Angiography and Intervention). JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2013 Nov; 6(11): 1138-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.08.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.08.004

Kedev S. Approaching the post-femoral era for coronary angiography and intervention. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 2018 Dec; 19(8): 910-1. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.10.017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2018.10.017

Ronald P, Jennifer A, Sunil R, Ian CG, Christopher P, Samir P. Transradial arterial access for coronary and peripheral procedures: Executive summary by the transradial committee of the SCAI. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2011 Nov; 78(6): 823-39. doi: 10.1002/ccd.23052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.23052

Rigatou A, Kontopodis E, Tassopoulos A, Kintis K, Nikitas G, Patsilinakos S, et al., Strategies to increase the use of forearm approach during coronary angiography and interventions Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 2018 Dec; 19(8): 980-4. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.07.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2018.07.002

Joanna KR, Krzysztof B, Tomasz T, Grzegorz D, Agata K, Anna Ż, et al., Comparison of patient comfort after coronary angiography by standard arterial access approaches, Kardiologia Polska 2016; 74(1): 68-74. doi: 10.5603/KP.a2015.0118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5603/KP.a2015.0118

Chambers CE, Fetterly KA, Holzer R, Lin PJ, Blankenship JC, Balter S, et al., Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2011 Mar; 77(4): 546-56. doi:10.1002/ccd.22867. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22867

Nijssen EC, Rennenberg RJ, Nelemans PJ, Essers BA, Janssen MM, Vermeeren MA, et al., Prophylactic hydration to protect renal function from intravascular iodinated contrast material in patients at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (AMACING): a prospective, randomised, phase 3, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2017 Apr; 389(10076): 1312-22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30057-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30057-0

Pawlowski T, Kulawik T, Gil RJ. Transradial approach to all interventional procedures a matter of the learning curve. JACC Cardiovasc Intervention. 2020 Apr; 3(4): 463. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.01.013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2010.01.013

Sinha SK, Mishra V, Afdaali N, Jha MJ, Kumar A, Asif M, et al., Coronary Angiography Safety between Transradial and Transfemoral Access. Cardiology Research and Practice. 2016; 2016: 4013843. doi: 10.1155/2016/4013843. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4013843

Philippe F, Larrazet F, Meziane T, Dibie A. Comparison of transradial vs. transfemoral approach in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with primary angioplasty and abciximab. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2004 Jan; 61(1): 67-73. doi: 10.1002/ccd.10675 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.10675

Pristipino C, Pelliccia F, Granatelli A, Pasceri V, Roncella A, Speciale G, et al., Comparison of access-related bleeding complications in women versus men undergoing percutaneous coronary catheterization using the radial versus femoral artery. American Journal of Cardiology. 2017 May; 99(9): 1216-21. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.12.038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.12.038

Louvard Y, Benamer H, Garot P, Hildick-Smith D, Loubeyre C, Rigattieri S, et al., OCTOPLUS Study Group. Comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and angioplasty in octogenarians (the OCTOPLUS study). American Journal of Cardiology. 2004 Nov; 94(9): 1177-80. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.07.089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.07.089

Jo MS, Kim KH, Choi KW, Lee JS, Kim SH, Yoon JB, et al., Wireless and linear hydrogen detection up to 4% with high sensitivity through phase-transition-inhibited Pd nanowires. ACS Nano. 2022 May; 16(8): 11957-67. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.2c01783. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.2c01783

Rao SV, Ou FS, Wang TY, Roe MT, Brindis R, Rumsfeld JS, et al., Trends in the prevalence and outcomes of radial and femoral approaches to percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Intervention. 2008 Aug; 1(4): 379-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2008.05.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2008.05.007

Kawashima O, Endoh N, Terashima M, Ito Y, Abe S, Ootomo T, et al., Effectiveness of right or left radial approach for coronary angiography. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions.2014 Mar; 61(3): 333-7. doi: 10.1002/ccd.10769. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.10769

Brueck M, Bandorski D, Kramer W, Wieczorek M, Höltgen R, Tillmanns H. A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. JACC Cardiovasc Intervention. 2009 Nov; 2(11): 1047-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.07.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2009.07.016

Detrenis S, Meschi M, Musini S, Savazzi G. Lights and shadows on the pathogenesis of contrast-induced nephropathy: state of the art. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2015 Aug; 20(8): 1542-50. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfh868. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfh868

Mercuri M, Mehta S, Xie C, Valettas N, Velianou JL, Natarajan MK. Radial artery access as a predictor of increased radiation exposure during a diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedure. JACC Cardiovasc Intervention. 2011 Mar; 4(3): 347-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.11.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2010.11.011

Jolly SS, Cairns J, Niemela K, Steg PG, Natarajan MK, Cheema AN, et al., Effect of radial versus femoral access on radiation dose and the importance of procedural volume: a substudy of the multicenter randomized RIVAL trial. JACC Cardiovasc Intervention. 2013 Mar; 6(3): 258-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.10.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2012.10.016

Plourde G, Pancholy SB, Nolan J, Jolly S, Rao SV, Amhed I, et al., Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2015 Nov 28; 386(10009): 2192-203. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00305-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00305-0

Lo TS, Ratib K, Chong AY, Bhatia G, Gunning M, Nolan J. Impact of access site selection and operator expertise on radiation exposure; a controlled prospective study. American Heart Journal. 2012 Oct; 164(4): 455-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.06.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2012.06.011

Üreyen ÇM, Coşansu K, Vural MG, Şahin SE, Kocayigit I, Pabuccu MT, et al., Is trans-radial approach related to an increased risk of radiation exposure in patients who underwent diagnostic coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention? (The SAKARYA study). Anatolian Journal of Cardiology. 2019 Jun; 22(1): 5-12. doi.org/10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2019.06013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2019.06013