ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE AND DIAGNOSTIC CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHYEPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA AND FEMORAL VS. RADIAL APPROACH : A SERIES OF 100 CASES

Introduction: The use of radial access for coronary interventions offers advantages such as reduced access-site bleeding and improved patient comfort. However, the learning curve for radial access and conflicting findings regarding outcomes in previous studies have influenced its widespread adoption. This study aimed to comprehensively assess the effects of radial access compared to femoral access in patients with ischemic heart disease. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 100 patients who underwent diagnostic coronary angiography at Ibn Sina University Hospital. Patient demographics, clinical indications, angiographic data, and complications were compared between the radial and femoral access groups. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. Results: The study included 45 patients in each group, with an average age of 63 years. Male patients accounted for 67% of the study population. The most common indications for coronary angiography were acute coronary syndrome (41%), heart failure (28%), stable angina (17%), and unstable angina (10%). The angiographic findings revealed that 79% of patients had pathological coronary angiograms, with bi-troncular involvement being the most prevalent (40.5%). Vascular complications occurred in 4% of cases, including a femoral fistula requiring vascular surgery. Conclusion: The study findings aligned with previous research, demonstrating that radial access resulted in fewer vascular and hemorrhagic complications compared to the femoral approach. However, the radial route presented challenges such as a longer procedural duration and increased radiation exposure. The decision between radial and femoral access should consider the operators experience, patient preference, and clinical factors.