Download PDFPDF
Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: is there a preferred route to the heart?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Access site selection for primary PCI - the evidence for transradial access is strong
    • Karim Ratib, Specialist Registrar
    • Other Contributors:
      • Dr Mamas A. Mamas, Dr Helen Routledge, Dr Douglas Fraser, Dr James Nolan

    We were interested to read the editorial written by Meier et al(1) relating to our recent meta-analysis of randomised trials evaluating access site selection in STEMI PCI(2). We agree with their comment that our meta-analysis adds to the body of evidence in support of radial access, and that our analysis has to be considered in the light of a number of interrelated issues. We do not however agree with the interpretation...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.