Interventionists Used to the Radial Approach No Longer Associated with Worse Femoral

radial approach vs femoralThe transradial approach is being increasingly adopted as preferred access site, since it is more comfortable for patients, reduces vascular and bleeding complications, is cost effective and reduces mortality in high risk patients. This has created concern about the fact that operators and institutions could become unfamiliar with the transfemoral approach.

 

The aim of this study was to determine whether the shift in favor of the transradial approach in everyday practice could negatively impact femoral approached PCI.

 

A retrospective analyzis of 235,250 transfemoral PCI patients was carried out in 92 UK centers between 2007 and 2013.  Researchers evaluated in-hospital vascular complications and mortality rates at 30 days.

 

After adjusting for multiple variables, no independent association was found between 30 day mortality and patients intervened via radial/femoral approach in each center, and similarly, femoral procedure volume was not found to be significant.

 

In-hospital vascular complications rate was 1%, and was not associated with the proportion of patients intervened via radial/femoral approach in each center.

 

Conclusion

Radial artery as chosen access site was not associated with loss of femoral artery proficiency or increased femoral artery puncture complications.

 

Original Title: Increased Radial Access Is Not Associated With Worse Femoral Outcomes for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United Kingdom.

Reference: Hulme W et al. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Feb;10(2):e004279.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

Patients at High Risk of Bleeding After Coronary Angioplasty: Are Risk Assessment Tools ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT Useful?

Patients undergoing coronary stenting typically receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 to 12 months, consisting of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and aspirin. While DAPT...

ACC 2025 | WARRIOR: Ischemia in Women with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Approximately half of all women with symptomatic ischemia who undergo coronary angiography are found to have non-obstructive coronary artery disease ((ischemia and non-obstructive coronary...

ACC 2025 | FLAVOUR II: Angiography-Derived FFR-Guided vs. IVUS-Guided PCI

Physiological assessment is effective when it comes to decision-making for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, despite the available evidence, its use remains limited. AngioFFR...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

RACE Trial: Effect of Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty and Riociguat on Right Ventricular Afterload and Function in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension

Even though pulmonary endarterectomy is the treatment of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), up to 40% of patients are not candidates because...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

TAVR in Small Annuli: What Valve Should We Use?

One of the major challenges of severe aortic stenosis are patients with small aortic annuli, defined as ≤430 mm² aortic valve area. This condition...