Complications of Radial vs Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: What Do the Data Tell Us?

Abstract

In the last decades, radial access, as an alternative to femoral access, has rapidly evolved and emerged as the preferred vascular access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The use of radial access for PCI can reduce access-site bleeding, particularly retroperitoneal bleeding, and risk of developing pseudoaneurysm, while also improving patient comfort after procedure (eg, early ambulation). However, radial access requires a longer learning curve to develop technical skills, and the data on radial artery graft for coronary artery bypass graft after radial access remain insufficient. Further, recent clinical trials have shown conflicts regarding whether radial access is associated with lower mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Despite these recent investigations, it is still debated whether there are benefits associated with radial access over femoral access for PCI. In this review, we will evaluate radial access compared with femoral access for PCI on clinical outcomes and further discuss the usefulness of radial access.