Background. Transradial PCI (TRI) is associated with reduced rate of complications, as compared with traditional femoral access PCI (FPCI). Despite the safety advantages of TRI, virtually no data exist to compare patients’ perspectives and health status between TRI and FPCI. Objective. To compare the short-term health status outcomes of patients undergoing elective TRI and FPCI. Methods. We prospectively followed 424 patients between 10/11- 9/12 who underwent elective PCI at our institution. Vascular access was selected by the operators. Within 72 hours after PCI, all patients were contacted by phone and completed health status questionnaires administered by a nurse blinded to the vascular access site. The questionnaires utilized a 5 point Likert scale with health status, satisfaction and preferences domains. Data were linked to NCDR to obtain patient and procedural characteristics of the PCI. Continuous variables were compared using Student’s T-test and categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Propensity scores were used to adjust for the differences between the groups when comparing outcomes. Results. Out of 424 patients, 316 underwent FPCI and 108 had TRI. Baseline differences between the groups included prior CABG (FPCI 29.1% vs. TRI 8.3%, p<0.001), prior CHF (FPCI 15.8% vs TRI 4.6%, p=0.003), and left ventricular ejection fraction (FPCI 55.3 ± 13.4% vs. TRI 59.1 ± 10.6%, p=0.02). Intraprocedural bivalirudin use was more common in the FPCI group (35.1% vs. 12%, p<0.001). There were no peri-procedural deaths, strokes or myocardial infarction. There was no NCDR-defined bleeding in the TRI group as compared with a 1.3% rate in the FPCI group (p=NS). Same day discharge was more common for TRI patients (16.7% vs. 0.6%, p< 0.001). When asked which approach the patients would prefer if having another PCI, femoral access was favored by 44.8% of FPCI patients and radial access by 87.0% of those undergoing TRI (p< 0.001). After propensity adjustment for baseline characteristics, there was no significant difference in overall pain (“pain level 2/10 or less”, RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.80, 1.44)), satisfaction with angina control (“completely satisfied” RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.79, 1.39)), ability to immediately return to work (“satisfied” RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.75, 1.65)). Conclusion. When compared with patients undergoing elective PCI via femoral access, TRI patients had stronger preferences for the same vascular access and were more frequently discharged on the day of the procedure. After adjustment for baseline clinical characteristics, there was no significant difference in short-term health status outcomes between the groups. Further collection of observational and clinical trial data regarding the patients’ perspectives of TRI is needed.