BACKGROUND: In our country radial access is still underused in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and compare radial to femoral vascular access for PCI in a real-world population. METHODS: Single center registry, with 507 consecutive patients undergoing PCI by radial (n = 121) and femoral (n = 386) access, according to the operator's choice. RESULTS: Patients using radial access (23.9%) were more often male (78.5% vs. 69.9%; P = 0.07) and smokers (19.8% vs. 11.7%; P = 0.02), had a higher prevalence of single-vessel disease (59.5% vs. 46.4%), type A/B1 (39% vs. 28.4%) lesions and had preserved ventricular function (87.1% vs. 73%; P < 0.01). Larger diameter and shorter stents were used in this group. Procedure success was high (97.3% vs. 96.3%; P = 0.56), the incidence of death was low and was not different between groups (0.8% vs. 0.8%; P = 0.96), as well as myocardial infarction rates (2.5% vs. 2.1%; P = 0.73). There were no urgent target-vessel revascularizations. Patients treated by the radial approach had a shorter hospitalization period (1 day vs. 2 days; P = 0.02) and did not have vascular complications (0 vs. 3.4%; P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: The use of radial access for PCI in our institution is twice the national average and the choice of patients for this technique provided similar results to those obtained by the femoral approach, no vascular complications and halved patients' average stay in hospital.
Angioplasty; Stents; Radial artery; Femoral artery
