Transradial versus transfemoral ancillary approach in complex structural, coronary, and peripheral interventions. Results from the multicenter ancillary registry: A study of the Italian Radial Club



to understand the role of a transradial (TR) secondary approach during complex percutaneous interventions.


The value of the TR route for ancillary vascular approach has not been adequately validated in this setting, and there is scant data on its role in reducing bleeding complications.


In the present study we retrospectively included patients undergoing the following interventions requiring two vascular approaches at nine high-volume centers in Italy: structural cardiac interventions, complex PCI, endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and complex lower limb angioplasty. We compared procedural outcomes according to the type of ancillary vascular approach selected, namely TR or transfemoral/transbrachial (TF/TB). Primary endpoints of the study were procedural success and in-hospital BARC grade 3–5 bleedings.


We included 906 patients, 433 receiving TR and 473 TF/TB ancillary approaches. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly. Patients underwent the following types of intervention: structural 50%, complex coronary PCI 37%, EVAR 11%, peripheral angioplasty 2%. Procedural success was similar (90% in TR and 92% TF/TB, P=NS). In-hospital BARC 3/5 bleedings were more common in TF/TB group as compared to TR group (19.7% vs. 6.7%,P<0.001). In TF/TB group we also observed a higher postprocedural hemoglobin drop (1.92 vs 1.13 g/dl, P=0.008) and longer hospital stay as compared to TR group. Similar results were observed in a propensity score-matched population of 450 patients.


In our study TR ancillary approach was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of major bleedings, without jeopardizing the success of complex structural, coronary, and peripheral percutaneous interventions.

Read More


Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 May 2.