Comparison of patient comfort after coronary angiography by standard arterial access approaches

Abstract

Background: Radial access during coronary angiography has become an increasingly popular alternative to femoral access. The procedural outcomes and complications of these two approaches have been thoroughly evaluated; however, no studies have focused exclusively on the postprocedural quality of life of patients.

Aim: To determine and compare both methods from the patient’s point of view.

Methods: Data were gathered from 165 consecutive patients scheduled for elective coronary angiography (from October 2011 to June 2012). The choice of the access site was left at operator’s discretion. Femoral and radial groups consisted of 91 and 74 patients, respectively. Quality of life was assessed by the Short Form of the McGill Questionnaire and a self-designed questionnaire (Questionnaire II) consisting of eight questions evaluating the procedure-specific aspects of recovery time. After three months from index hospitalisation post-discharge interviews were conducted using a modified version of Questionnaire II with an additional two questions.

Results: Patients from the transfemoral approach group characterised their pain (according to McGill Questionnaire) more often as aching (mean value ± SD: 0.84 ± 1.2 vs. 0.21 ± 0.6; p = 0.003), heavy (0.29 vs. 0.027; p = 0.02), and exhausting (0.22 ± 0.7 vs. 0.07 ± 0.2; p = 0.037). Moreover, in Questionnaire II they indicated tenderness of the puncture site (0.42 ± 0.8 vs. 0.23 ± 0.07; p = 0.00004) more frequently.

Conclusions: The quality of life of patients who underwent coronary angiography from radial access was remarkably better in terms of pain characteristic and overall discomfort.