Interv Akut Kardiol. 2010;9(6):286-288

Is radial approach appropriate for beginning interventional cardiologists ?

Lukáš Jaworski, David Horák, Rostislav Polášek

Kardiocentrum Krajská nemocnice Liberec, a. s.

Advantages of radial access (AR) compared to femoral access (AF) were demonstrated in many clinical trials. Experience with training of

new interventional cardiologists using primarily radial access are missing. This article compares both approaches in the hands of beginning

interventional cardiologists performing diagnostic cardiac catheterizations. Retrospective analysis of datas confirmed benefit of radial

access. Fluoroscopic times were comparable (AR vs AF 5.56 ± 0.24 min/examination vs 5.75 ± 0.27 min/examination; P = 0.699), total times

of examinations were significantly shorter (AR vs AF 21.18 ± 0.59 min/examination vs 28.06 ± 0.76 min/examination; P ≤ 0.001), contrast

consumption was also lower (AR vs AF 113.95 ± 2.09 ml/examination vs 145.08 ± 2.83 ml/examination; P ≤ 0.001). The most important is

low number of severe vascular complications (0.5 % in transradial group). Outcomes of analysis indicate that benefit of radial access is

apparent even in the interventional cardiologist training period.

Keywords: radial access, learning curve, interventional cardiologist training

Published: December 10, 2010  Show citation