{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03044982698961938, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02975778546712803, 'mean_word_length': 5.484304932735426, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing the Left Distal Transradial Artery Access to Traditional Access Methods For Coronary Angiography: A Single-Center Experience

Citation Comparing the Left Distal Transradial Artery Access to Traditional Access Methods For Coronary Angiography: A Single-Center Experience. Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine 6 (2022): Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of left distal transradial (LdTRA) approach in patients who had prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with conventional femoral and radial access for coronary angiography. and for radial access was 13.23±1.74 minutes. The fluoroscopy dose for femoral access was 599.98±26.63 Gy/cm2, for snuffbox approach 722.71±112.94 Gy/cm2 and for radial access was 767.06±90.89 Gy/cm2. There were no complications noted in our study. We found no statistical significance difference between approaches with regards to time of access, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy dose and mean length of hospital stay. Conclusion: Due to the lack of statistical significance between outcomes of either approach, all approaches are acceptable options. Clinically, the snuffbox approach may be superior because it helps salvage the radial conduit for future coronary interventions and avoids the risk of femoral access complications. Therefore, we suggest operators strongly consider the snuffbox approach in patients with prior CABG.