Article Text

Download PDFPDF
76 Radial Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - Does Access Site Choice Translate Into Clinical Benefit?
  1. Nikil K Rajani,
  2. Adam J Brown,
  3. Liam M McCormick,
  4. Hammad Parwaiz,
  5. Stephen P Hoole,
  6. Nick West
  1. Department of Interventional Cardiology, Papworth Hospital


Introduction Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that transradial (TR) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces bleeding and improves survival compared with transfemoral access (TF). This benefit may be most marked in the context of primary PCI (pPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Due to the learning curve associated with TR PCI, these benefits may not translate immediately into real-world practice.Our study sought to determine the effect on clinical outcomes, as our institution switched from TF to TR access.

Methods Consecutive patients presenting for PCI over a four year period (1.1.2008–31.12.2011) were included.The choice of access site and, interventional strategy were left to operator discretion. Haemorrhagic complications were identified and classified according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definitions.

Results 8166 patients (mean age 64.8 ± 11.5 yrs, 76.2% male) were included. Over the study period, TR access became more prevalent (2008- 2.0%, 2011- 42.7%), and the haemorrhagic complication rate fell (2008- 1.64%, 2011- 0.95%, p = 0.05).TR PCI was associated with lower combined rates of BARC 2, 3 and 5 bleeding compared with TF access (0.30% vs. 1.45%, p < 0.001).This improvement was driven by lower rates of access-site related bleeding with TR PCI (TR 0.15% vs. TF 1.16%, p = 0.0009). There was no significant difference in non-access site related bleeding (TR 0.15% vs. TF 0.28%, p = 0.55).

As TR access became more prevalent (2009–11), a significant survival benefit was observed at 30 days (TR 99.4% vs. TF 98.5%, p = 0.01) and 1 year (TR 97.7% vs. TF 96.5%, p = 0.03).This benefit was most marked in pPCI (TR 98.0% vs. TF 95.7%, p = 0.06 at 30 days and TR 96.6% vs. TF 92.8%, p = 0.02 at 1 year), and occurred despite comparable levels of cardiogenic shock (TR 0.8% vs. TF 1.2%, p = 0.27) and chronic kidney disease (TR 0.7% vs. TF 1.1%, p = 0.21).Further analysis revealed that TR access was most beneficial in pPCI patients receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (1 year survival TR 99.2% vs. TF 93.5%, p = 0.01), with no survival benefit in those not receiving these drugs.

Discussion In real-world practice, despite the learning curve, TR access is associated with a reduced rate of access-site related bleeding and a significant survival benefit at 30 days and 1 year. This beneficial effect is most marked in pPCI and specifically when strong antithrombotic agents (e.g. glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors) are used. Our data supports the hypothesis that reduced bleeding may, in part, be responsible for the survival differences observed between TF and TR access.

Abstract 76 Figure 1

30 day survival post PCI (TF 98.5% [n = 4621], TR 99.4% [n = 1318], p = 0.01)

Abstract 76 Figure 2

1 year survival post PCI (TF 96.5% [n = 4621], TR 97.7% [n = 1318]. p = 0.03)

  • radial access
  • bleeding
  • percutaneous coronary intervention

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.