BACKGROUND: The radial artery access has evolved into a flexible approach in the last decade, showing similar or superior results when compared to the femoral approach. We assessed the incorporation of the radial artery access in a training center for interventional cardiologists and compared the results to those of the femoral artery access. METHODS: Observational, single-center study, including consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2007 and 2011. The access route was chosen by the resident along with the interventionist responsible for PCI. We compared the composite endpoint of death, periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke or major bleeding between the two groups during hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 5,545 patients undergoing PCI, 29.8% used the radial approach and 70.2 used the femoral approach. Mean age was 60.8 ± 11.7 years, 68.9% were males and 29% had acute coronary syndromes. There was an increase in the use of the radial approach until 2010 and stabilization in the subsequent year (11.8% in 2008, 26.2% in 2009, 45.1% in 2010 and 42.6% in 2011). Patients using the radial approach had a less complex clinical and angiographic profile. There were no differences in the composite endpoint (5% vs. 5.9%; P = 0.18), death (0.1% vs. 0.8%; P = 0.71), stroke (0.06% vs. 0.03%; P = 0.53) or periprocedural MI (4.5% vs. 3.8%; P = 0.27). However, there was a lower incidence of major bleeding events (0.4% vs. 1.3%; P < 0.01) and vascular complications (0.5% vs. 2.2%; P < 0.01) with the radial approach. CONCLUSIONS: At our interventional cardiology training center, PCI through the radial approach was quickly incorporated and provided, for selected patients, outcomes similar to those of the femoral approach, with decrease of major bleeding and vascular complication rates.
Angioplasty; Stents; Radial artery; Femoral artery; Hemorrhage
