Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Retracted

Cardiology Research and Practice has retracted this article. The article was found to contain a substantial amount of material from the following published articles:C. M. S. Kabir, M. M. Haq, S. R. Khan, M. Z. Chowdhury, M. L. Ali, and M. R. Karim, “Safety of radial vs. femoral artery access in coronary angiography,” Bangladesh Heart Journal, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 68–73, 2016, doi: 10.3329/bhj.v30i2.28814 (not cited).M. Brueck, D. Bandorski, W. Kramer, M. Wieczorek, R. Höltgen, and H. Tillmanns, “A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 1047–1054, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.07.016 (not cited).

There are also concerns with the reporting of the study design. The methods state “It was prospective, randomized, single-centre study conducted in the Department of Cardiology, LPS Institute of Cardiology, GSVM Medical College, Kanpur, U.P, India, where all cases of diagnostic coronary angiography (CAG) of 1997 consecutive patients for various reasons over a 12-month period (from January 2015 till the end of December 2015) were reviewed for this analysis,” but then that “The choice between transfemoral or transradial artery access was operator’s discretion with right radial approach being the default strategy.” These are mutually exclusive approaches to treatment allocation, that is, randomization versus surgeon discretion. Additionally, a trial registration number is not included.

We were unable to contact the authors.

View the full Retraction here.

References

  1. S. K. Sinha, V. Mishra, N. Afdaali et al., “Coronary angiography safety between transradial and transfemoral access,” Cardiology Research and Practice, vol. 2016, Article ID 4013843, 7 pages, 2016.
Cardiology Research and Practice
Volume 2016, Article ID 4013843, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4013843
Research Article

Coronary Angiography Safety between Transradial and Transfemoral Access

Department of Cardiology, LPS Institute of Cardiology, G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 208002, India

Received 31 July 2016; Accepted 18 September 2016

Academic Editor: Robert Chen

Copyright © 2016 Santosh Kumar Sinha et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background and Aim. The aim of study was to evaluate safety, feasibility, and procedural variables of transradial approach compared with transfemoral approach in a standard population of patients undergoing coronary catheterization as one of the major criticisms of the transradial approach is that it takes longer overall procedure and fluoroscopy time, thereby causing more radiation exposure. Method. Between January 2015 and December 2015, a total of 1,997 patients in LPS Institute of Cardiology, GSVM Medical College, Kanpur, UP, India, undergoing coronary catheterization were randomly assigned to the transradial or transfemoral approach. Result. Successful catheterization was achieved in 1045 of 1076 patients (97.1%) in the transradial group and in 918 of 921 patients (99.7%) in the transfemoral group (). Comparing the transradial and transfemoral approaches, fluoroscopy time ( versus  min; ), procedure time ( versus  min; ), contrast volume ( versus  mL; ), radiation dose as dose area product ( versus  Gycm2; ), and postprocedural rise of serum creatinine (% versus %; ) were not significantly different while vascular access site complications were significantly lower in transradial group than transfemoral group (3.9% versus 7.6%; ). Conclusion. The present study shows that transradial access for coronary angiography is safe among patients compared to transfemoral access with lower rate of local vascular complications.