Feldman, D.N., Swaminathan, R.V., Kaltenbach, L.A., Baklanov, D.V., Kim, L.K., Wong, S.C., Minutello, R.M., Messenger, J.C., Moussa, I., Garratt, K.N., et al. (2013) Adoption of Radial Access and Comparison of Outcomes to Femoral Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (2007-2012). Circulation, 127, 2295-2306.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000536

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Contrast Induced Nephropathy after Radial or Femoral Access for Invasive Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome

  AUTHORS: Neveen I. Samy, Walaafareed  , Ahmed Abdelbaky S. Ahmed, Mohamed Osama

  KEYWORDS: Contrast Induced Nephropathy, Serum, Creatinine, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

  JOURNAL NAME: World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases, Vol.9 No.8, August 21, 2019

  ABSTRACT: Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention is now the best way of management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Contrast induced nephropathy is a serious complication and greatly dependent on several factors. It is still unclear whether the vascular access migrates CIN risk. Objective: To study the impact of Radial Access (RA) compared with Femoral Access (FA) on developing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients undergoing invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Sixty patients eligible for invasive management of ACS at cardiology department (Menoufia University hospital and National Heart Institute) were randomized into two groups. Group I: included 30 patients with femoral approach and Group II: included 30 patients with radial approach. The occurrence of CIN estimated by KDIGO definition (absolute increase in serum creatinine (SCr) by ≥0.5 mg/dl within 48 hours; or increase in SCr to ≥25% of baseline) was estimated in both groups. Results: Only 9 patients (15%) developed CIN, 5 patients (55.6%) of them underwent PCI through FA without statistically significant difference between the two approaches.Conclusion: CIN is considered a potential complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our study did not show the preference of using an approach over the other.