A Comparative Matched Analysis of Clinical Outcomes between Transradial versus Transfemoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention


BACKGROUND: Several trials support the transradial route of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) since it reduces access-site vascular complications and bleeding.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of transradial interventions (TRI) on clinical outcomes in a 'real-world' cohort of patients undergoing PCI.

METHODS: We analyzed 4873 consecutive patients who underwent PCI at a tertiary center and identified 373 patients who underwent TRI. Patients (radial vs. femoral) were compared using a propensity score analysis to best match between groups. Outcome parameters included total mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates, length of hospitalization and AHt/Hb/creatinine values during hospitalization. These were evaluated at 6 months and 1 to 3 years after PCI.

RESULTS: The rates of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and its constituents were similar in the transradial vs. transfemoral groups at all time intervals: 6.7% vs. 5.5% at 6 months, 10.3% vs. 10% at 1 year, 15.7% vs. 15% at 2 years, 15.7% vs. 16% at 3 years, respectively (P = 0.6). The length of hospitalization was shorter in the TRI group (2.87 days ± 2.04 vs. 3.3 days ± 3.12, P = 0.023). We did not find significant differences between the groups in the mean AHt/Hb/creatinine values during the hospitalization course.

CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting of PCI, the TRI route of PCI is as safe and efficient as the femoral approach. TRI is associated with shorter duration of hospitalization.

Read More


Isr Med Assoc J. 2015;17:360–364