Comparison of Recovery Time in Patients Undergoing Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention:

Naveen Kumar  Gupta; Bharat Bhushan  Dagur; Bhavana  Singhal; Shadab Khan  Chauhan; Sneha  Gupta; Ram Naresh  Saini

Naveen Kumar Gupta Tutor, Department of Cath lab technology, Mahatma Gandhi institute of Allied health sciences, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Bharat Bhushan Dagur Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Radiodiagnosis, SMC, Santosh Deemed to be University, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Bhavana Singhal Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Allied Health Sciences, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Shadab Khan Chauhan Ph.D. Scholar in Medical Laboratory Technology, School of Medical and Allied Sciences, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, UP, India.
Sneha Gupta Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia and Operation theatre technology, Mahatma Gandhi institute of Allied health sciences, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Ram Naresh Saini Cath Lab Technician, Department of Cath Lab, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.

Keywords: Coronary Angiography, Radial Artery, Femoral Artery, Patient Comfort, Pain Measurement

Abstract

Background: Transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) are commonly used vascular access routes for coronary angiography. Differences in post-procedural pain, comfort, and access-site complications may influence patient recovery. Subjects and Methods: A prospective comparative observational study was conducted in the Cath Lab, Department of Cardiology, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jaipur, from March 2026 to July 2026. The study included 40 adult patients undergoing elective coronary angiography, with 20 patients in the TRA group and 20 in the TFA group. Data regarding demographic characteristics, access-site bleeding, hematoma, post-procedural pain, and patient comfort were collected using a structured case record form. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS; 0–10), and comfort was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: The TRA group demonstrated lower post-procedural pain than the TFA group (4.90 ± 1.65 vs. 7.85 ± 0.59; p < 0.001). Patient comfort was significantly higher in the TRA group (3.40 ± 0.82 vs. 2.30 ± 0.66; p < 0.001). Access-site bleeding occurred in 5.0% of TRA patients compared with 15.0% of TFA patients, while hematoma occurred in 0% and 10.0%, respectively. These differences in complications were not statistically significant. Conclusion: In this study, TRA was associated with significantly lower post-procedural pain and greater patient comfort, with a lower observed frequency of access-site bleeding and hematoma than TFA. TRA may therefore provide a more favorable post-procedural recovery experience following elective coronary angiography.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Bhat FA, Changal KH, Raina H, Tramboo NA, Rather HA. Transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty: a prospective, randomized comparison. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017;17(1):23. doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0457-2.
2. Andò G, Capodanno D. Radial artery access reduces mortality and bleeding in patients undergoing coronary intervention: an updated review of evidence. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(21):2556-2571.
3. Mason PJ, Shah B, Tamis-Holland JE, et al. An update on radial artery access and best practices for coronary angiography and intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(21):2290-2301.
4. Bangalore S, Radford MJ, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral access for coronary angiography and intervention: outcomes and contemporary practice patterns. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97(4):E469-E478.
5. Choudhury T, Khattab AA, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a contemporary systematic review. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021;29:1-8.
6. Lee MS, Chen CH, et al. Comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary procedures in contemporary practice. J Invasive Cardiol. 2021;33(8):E600-E608.
7. Xanthopoulou I, Davlouros P, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary intervention: impact on bleeding, vascular complications, and clinical outcomes. J Clin Med. 2022;11(12):3448.
8. Wang Y, Li J, et al. Comparison of transradial and transfemoral access in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:1002761.
9. Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, et al. Contemporary outcomes of radial and femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention. Heart. 2023;109(4):285-292.
10. Yasmin F, Umar M, Moeed A, et al. Radiation exposure with transradial versus transfemoral access for diagnostic coronary angiography and intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;83(13 Suppl):67.
11. Tahir F, Ahmed N, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral access for coronary angiography and intervention: effect on vascular complications and hospital stay. Cureus. 2024;16(2):e54321.
12. Valgimigli M, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, et al. Radial versus femoral access and outcomes in patients undergoing coronary angiography and intervention: updated clinical evidence. Eur Heart J. 2024;45(6):512-522.