Background: There is controversy in the literature about the advantages of the radial vs. femoral access route for diagnostic catheterizations. This study aimed to compare the radial and femoral access for procedural and fluoroscopy times and for contrast volume. Methods: This was an observational, retrospective study based on the records of consecutive patients undergoing cardiac catheterization from July 2012 to December 2013. Results: We evaluated 192 patients and the radial access was used in 78.1% of the cases. Mean age was 63.1 ± 11.9 years, most were male (55.7%) and 21.4% had diabetes. Procedural time was lower in the radial group: 12.0 minutes (9.0 to 17.2 minutes) vs. 18.3 minutes (12.0 to 34.5 minutes), p < 0.01. Fluoroscopy time was 270.0 seconds (180.0 to 389.5 seconds) vs. 244.0 seconds (175.3 to 705.0 seconds), and there was no difference between groups (p = 0.59). Contrast volume was lower in the radial group: 100.0 mL (75.0 to 117.5 mL) vs. 100.0 mL (80.0 to 150.0 mL), p < 0.01. Conclusions: In this laboratory, which favored the radial access for cardiac catheterization, procedural and fluoroscopy times, as well as contrast volume, were lower or comparable to the femoral access.

Abordaremos aspectos relacionados às normas eleitorais que guardam relevância para a inclusão de grupos excluídos ou com restrições significativas quanto ao acesso à representação política. Dessa forma, iremos focar em três aspectos: (a) os avanços e os desafios das candidaturas coletivas; (b) o financiamento público de mulheres e pessoas negras; e (c) a relação entre partidos políticos e candidaturas indígenas. Entendemos a importância de mobilizar uma discussão específica sobre os três aspectos suscitados e a legislação sobre partidos políticos e sua organização. Em todas essas discussões, pesa a necessidade de refletir sobre o grau de autonomia partidária e em que medida ela deve ser compreendida como um princípio absoluto.