BACKGROUND: The radial approach has demonstrated superior benefits to the femoral approach in reducing vascular complications and bleeding events associated to percutaneous coronary interventions. However, because this is a more complex procedure, it requires a learning curve to get all of the advantages of the technique. The aim of this study was to present the characteristics of the procedures of a center that prioritizes the use of radial approach. METHODS: Prospective registry of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using the radial or ulnar access where angiographic success, technical failure, ischemic adverse events and severe bleeding rates were assessed. A pre-specified analysis of the group undergoing PCI for the right coronary artery was performed, comparing patients using Judkins right catheter (JR) or Amplatz catheters. RESULTS: Between April 2010 and May 2012, 1,117 patients underwent PCI, 1,040 (93.1%) by the radial approach and 50 (4.5%) by the ulnar approach. Sedation was performed in 58.5% of the patients, the crossover rate was 1.2%, and angiographic success was 96.2%. Extra backup catheters were used in 99.1% of PCIs for the left coronary artery, JR in 69.4% and Amplatz in 27.1% of the PCIs for the right coronary artery. When the JR and Amplatz were compared, longer procedure duration, longer fluoroscopy time, larger number of catheters, more frequent lesion predilation and higher number of implanted stents were observed in the group using Amplatz catheters as well as lower angiographic success rates. CONCLUSIONS: The use of radial access in PCI showed a high success rate and a low rate of major cardiac events and bleeding complications. The liberal use of sedation and 6 F introducer sheaths, associated to catheters with stronger backup force, are characteristics of our center, which prioritizes the use of the radial approach.
Radial artery; Angioplasty; Catheters; Hemorrhage
