Özet:

Objectives: There are not many studies comparing the right conventional and left distal radial (anatomical snuffbox) access in coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of patient satisfaction and complications; therefore, in this study, we planned to compare these two approaches and determine the ideal radial access site for the patients. Patients and methods: A total of 120 patients (80 males, 40 females; mean age: 59.2±11.7 years; range, 18 to 90 years) who underwent CAG or PCI via the radial artery between February 2022 and April 2022 were included in the prospective observational study. The patients were divided into right conventional radial artery access (Group 1; n=68) and left distal radial artery (access (Group 2; n=52) groups. Results: The rate of minor bleeding was higher in the right conventional access group compared to the left distal access group (16.2% vs. 3.8%; p=0.031). Major bleeding, hand ischemia, and radial artery occlusion were not observed in the study population. The rate of patients who had pain that disrupts daily activities was statistically higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (17.6% vs. 5.8%). The patients in Group 2 were more satisfied with the transradial CAG/PCI compared to Group 1 (94.3% vs. 66.2%; p=0.001). Conclusion: Left distal radial artery access from the anatomic snuffbox was a safer method than right conventional radial artery access for CAG or PCI. Patients were more satisfied with the left distal radial access than the right conventional radial access.

Anahtar Kelimeler: