Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Radial Versus Femoral Access for Acute Coronary Syndromes

  • Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes (R Gulati, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The feasibility and safety of transradial coronary intervention was demonstrated soon after the description of the transfemoral approach, despite which the use of the femoral artery still dominates in acute coronary syndrome intervention. The advantages of using the radial artery are virtual elimination of access site complications and an important reduction in bleeding, both of which are of utmost importance to the patient with myocardial infarction. Randomised controlled trials have now documented what seems inherent; that transradial intervention should bring with it an advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality in this cohort. The potential disadvantages in terms of speed of procedure and radiation exposure are negated by operator experience. Registries have illustrated that conversion on a large scale from the femoral to the transradial approach is safe and saves lives, most convincingly so in acute coronary syndrome intervention. This review discusses the potential benefits and risks of the alternative access sites in acute patients and explores how these are borne out in the published data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Campeau L. Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1989;16(1):3–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ. Transradial artery coronary angioplasty. Am Heart J. 1995;129:1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kiemeneji F, Laarman GL, et al. A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study. JACC. 1997;29(6):1269–75. A randomized comparison of 6-F procedures in 900 patients showing equivalent success but with no access site complications in the radial group.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kwok C RS, Myint P, et al. Major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention and risk of subsequent mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart 2014. A meta-analysis showing that any increase in major bleeding predicts an increase in both mortality and MACE.

  5. Verheugt FW, Steinhubl SR, Hamon M, et al. Incidence, prognostic impact, and influence of antithrombotic therapy on access and nonaccess site bleeding in percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2011;4:191–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Amin AP, House JA, Safley DM, et al. Costs of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2013;6:827–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rao SV, Patel MR. The value proposition in percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2013;6:835–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kotowycz MA, Vladimír DV. Radial artery patency after transradial catheterization. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:127–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Saito S, Ikei H, et al. Influence of the ratio between radial artery inner diameter and sheath outer diameter on radial artery flow after transradial coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999;46:173–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rathore S, Stables RH, et al. Impact of length and hydrophilic coating of the introducer sheath on radial artery spasm during transradial coronary intervention: a randomized study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(5):475–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pancholy S, Coppola J, et al. Prevention of radial artery occlusion-patent hemostasis evaluation trial (PROPHET study): a randomized comparison of traditional versus patency documented hemostasis after transradial catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72(3):335–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mann T, Cubeddu G. Stenting in acute coronary syndromes: a comparison of radial versus femoral access sites. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32(3):572–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pristipino C, Trani C, et al. Major improvement of percutaneous cardiovascular procedure outcomes with radial artery catheterisation: results from the PREVAIL study. Heart. 2009;95(6):476–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jolly SS, Amlani S, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J. 2009;157(1):132–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9775):1409–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jolly SS, Cairns J, Niemela K, et al. Effect of radial versus femoral access on radiation dose and the importance of procedural volume: a substudy of the multicenter randomized RIVAL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2013;6(3):258–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomized multicenter trial. Lancet 2015.

  18. Ratib K, Mamas MA, et al. Access site practice and procedural outcomes in relation to clinical presentation in 439,947 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the UK. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(1):20–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mustafa AH, Holdroyd E, et al. Transradial intervention in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2015;17(5):30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Romagnoli E, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(24):2481–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bernat I, Horak D. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(10):964–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mamas MA, Ratib K. Influence of access site selection on PCI-related adverse events in patients with STEMI: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart. 2012;98(4):303–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Joyal D, Bertrand OF, et al. Meta-analysis of ten trials on the effectiveness of the radial versus the femoral approach in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2012;109(6):813–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Karrowni W, Vyas A, et al. Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(8):814–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mamas MA, Ratib K, Routledge H, et al. Influence of arterial access site selection on outcomes in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: are the results of randomized trials achievable in clinical practice? J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2013;6:698–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Baklanov DV, Kaltenbach LA, et al. The prevalence and outcomes of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction analysis from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007 to 2011). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:420–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mamas M, D’Souza S, et al. Use of the sheathless guide catheter during routine transradial percutaneous coronary intervention: a feasibility study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:596–602.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Worcestershire Royal Hospital, Worcester, UK

    Helen Routledge

  2. Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK

    Sanjay Sastry

Authors
  1. Helen Routledge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanjay Sastry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Routledge.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Helen Routledge and Sanjay Sastry declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Routledge, H., Sastry, S. Radial Versus Femoral Access for Acute Coronary Syndromes. Curr Cardiol Rep 17, 117 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-015-0676-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-015-0676-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation