Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Interventional cardiology
Major improvement of percutaneous cardiovascular procedure outcomes with radial artery catheterisation: results from the PREVAIL study
  1. C Pristipino1,
  2. C Trani2,
  3. M S Nazzaro3,
  4. A Berni4,
  5. G Patti5,
  6. R Patrizi6,
  7. B Pironi7,
  8. P Mazzarotto8,
  9. G Gioffrè9,
  10. G G L Biondi-Zoccai10,
  11. G Richichi1,
  12. on behalf of the Prospective REgistry of Vascular Access in Interventions in Lazio region (PREVAIL) study group
  1. 1
    San Filippo Neri Hospital, Rome, Italy
  2. 2
    Catholic University, Rome, Italy
  3. 3
    San Camillo Hospital, Rome, Italy
  4. 4
    Sant’ Andrea Hospital, Rome, Italy
  5. 5
    Campus Biomedico University, Rome, Italy
  6. 6
    Policlinico Casilino Hospital, Rome, Italy
  7. 7
    Madre G Vannini Hospital, Rome, Italy
  8. 8
    San Carlo Hospital, Rome, Italy
  9. 9
    Sant’ Eugenio Hospital, Rome, Italy
  10. 10
    San Giovanni Battista “Molinette” University Hospital, Turin, Italy
  1. Dr Christian Pristipino, Via Bogorose 5, 00189 Rome, Italy; pristipino.c{at}


Objective: To obtain a “snapshot” view of access-specific percutaneous cardiovascular procedures outcomes in the real world.

Design: Multicentre, prospective study performed over a 30-day period.

Setting: Nine hospitals with invasive cardiology facilities, reflecting the contemporary state of healthcare.

Patients: Unselected consecutive sample of patients undergoing any percutaneous cardiovascular procedure requiring an arterial access.

Interventions: Percutaneous cardiovascular procedures by radial or femoral access

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the combined incidence of in-hospital (a) major and minor haemorrhages; (b) peri-procedural stroke; and (c) entry-site vascular complications. The secondary outcome was the combined incidence of in-hospital death and myocardial infarction/reinfarction. For analysis purposes, outcomes were allocated to arterial access-determined study arms on an intention-to treat basis. Multivariable analysis adjusted using propensity score was performed to correct for selection bias related to arterial site.

Results: A total of 1052 patients were enrolled: 509 underwent radial access and 543 femoral access. In both groups, 40% underwent a coronary angioplasty. Relative to femoral access, radial access was associated with a lower incidence both of primary (4.2% vs 1.96%, p = 0.03, respectively) and secondary endpoints (3.1% vs 0.6%, p = 0.005, respectively). Multivariate analysis, adjusted for procedural and clinical confounders, confirmed that intention-to-access via the radial route was significantly and independently associated with a decreased risk both of primary (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.84) and secondary endpoints (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62).

Conclusions: Our study indicates strikingly better outcomes of percutaneous cardiovascular procedures with radial access versus femoral access in contemporary, real-world clinical settings.

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.