Radial Versus Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease

Guidelines recommend trans-radial access (TRA) for all percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, no randomized trials have shown a lower mortality when compared to the femoral approach in chronic coronary disease and femoral access may be preferred in certain situations. Consecutive eligible patients in a multi-center registry between 2014 - 2020 were included. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between those who underwent radial versus femoral access. The main outcomes were major bleeding and 5-year mortality. Of the 6,158 patients included, 3,784 (61.4%) had TRA and 2,374 (38.6%) femoral access. TRA predominated from 2016. The femoral group had higher rates of diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction and prior stroke. Trans-femoral procedures were more complex with higher rates of ACC/AHA type B2/C lesions, chronic total occlusions, left main PCI, use of adjuvants including rotational atherectomy, and lower procedural success rates. Major bleeding was higher in the femoral group (radial 0.4% vs femoral 0.8%, p = 0.039), however femoral access did not predict major bleeding (OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.82). There was no difference in 5-year mortality (radial 20.3% vs femoral 21%, p = 0.65). In conclusion, TRA predominates in contemporary PCI for CCD. The femoral group had higher procedural complexity and risk with a higher incidence of peri‑procedural major bleeding. Nonetheless, femoral access did not predict major bleeding and there was no difference in 5-year mortality as compared to TRA. In the absence of a contemporary randomized trial, the femoral approach appears reasonable if clinically preferred in patients with chronic coronary disease undergoing PCI.