Patient Perspectives on Coronary Angiography Comparing Transradial vs Transfemoral Access

Introduction

In recent years, the debate between transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) for coronary angiography (CAG) has become increasingly important in clinical practice. While TRA is recommended for its lower bleeding risks and faster recovery, the choice of access method significantly impacts patient satisfaction and procedure outcomes. A study conducted in 2024 sought to explore this issue by comparing patient experiences with both access routes. The research revealed surprising findings, particularly regarding post-procedural pain and patient preferences. For more groundbreaking research in this field, visit https://www.cardiologymedjournal.com/jccm.

Study Findings:

• Patient Satisfaction: The study included 152 patients, divided between those who underwent TRA and TFA. Despite the advantages of TRA, no significant difference in overall satisfaction was found between the two groups.
• Post-Procedural Pain: A notable finding was that patients who underwent TRA reported significantly higher post-procedural pain compared to those who underwent TFA (46% vs. 15%).
• Complications: Both access methods resulted in similar complication rates, with minor bleeding occurring in 16% of patients and major bleeding in only 0.02%.

Key Takeaways:

• Patient Preferences: No significant difference in patient preference between TRA and TFA, with both access routes showing high levels of satisfaction.
• Post-Procedure Experience: Despite the theoretical benefits of TRA, increased post-procedural pain was a downside noted by many TRA patients.
• Clinical Implications: The findings suggest that operator experience and patient preferences should guide the choice of access route, highlighting the importance of shared decision-making.

Integration of External Medical Sources

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) underscores the importance of involving patients in the decision-making process for coronary interventions, recommending that both TRA and TFA options be clearly explained to patients to enhance satisfaction and outcomes.

Further Reading and Resources

To learn more about the findings, read the full study at https://doi.com/10.29328/journal.jccm.1001200. A detailed analysis can be found in our main journal article.

For further insights into coronary angiography access routes, explore related articles on JCCM’s website.

Call-to-Action

Explore more studies at https://www.cardiologymedjournal.com/jccm and join the conversation by sharing your thoughts in the comments below!

Disclaimer: This content is generated using AI assistance and should be reviewed for accuracy and compliance before considering this article and its contents as a reference.Any mishaps or grievances raised due to the reusing of this material will not be handled by the author of this article.