الفهرس 
INTRODUCTION
AIM OF THE WORKOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 32 |  |  |
| | | from | 32 | | |
Abstract
Objectives: The study is designed to examine the influence of access site selection on bleeding, vascular, and procedural complications following coronary angiography or intervention.
Methods: In this study, 140 patients were enrolled from patients presenting to Catheterization laboratory at Assuit university hospital for diagnostic and interventional coronary artery procedures; they were randomly divided into two groups: TFA group (72 patients) and TRA group (68 patients). All patients had the same probability to be included in either TRA or TFA group. History taking and examination was done to all. Then, they were compared for various demographic and clinical characteristics, risk factors profile, vascular access and procedural details.
Results: The two groups were similar with respect to baseline characteristics and procedural variables, except for the mean engagement time which was significantly longer in the TRA group (8.10 ± 7.32 min, p < 0.001) and the mean fluoroscopy time which was significantly longer in the TRA group (16.62 ± 11.84 min, p <0.001). Also the rate of crossover was higher in TRA (8.8%) than in TFA (2.8%) (p =0.240). Compared with TFA, TRA was associated with significantly lower rate of entry site complications (25%) compared to (65%) for TFA (p <0.001). Only minor complications were seen in the TRA group, most commonly being radial artery spasm and minor hematoma. While in the TFA group 21 patients (29%) developed hematoma at the access site of more than 5cm in diameter. Moreover, satisfaction level was higher and pain level was lower in TRA group.
Conclusion:
TRA is a good alternative to TFA as it is safe, feasible and increases patient comfort and preference. However TRA is limited by a significantly longer procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, radiation exposure and higher rate of crossover.