Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Apr 18;4(4):CD012318.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012318.pub2.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease

Ahmed A Kolkailah  1 , Rabah S Alreshq, Ahmed M Muhammed, Mohamed E Zahran, Marwah Anas El-Wegoud, Ashraf F Nabhan
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease

Ahmed A Kolkailah et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures.

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both).

Search methods: We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD.

Data collection and analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author.

Main results: We identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence).

Authors' conclusions: Transradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

AK: no conflicts of interest to disclose.

RA: no conflicts of interest to disclose.

AM: no conflicts of interest to disclose.

MZ: no conflicts of interest to disclose.

MA: no conflicts of interest to disclose.

AN: no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

1
1
PRISMA study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
4
4
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Transradial versus transfemoral, outcome: 1.5 Short‐term cardiac death.
5
5
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Transradial versus transfemoral, outcome: 1.20 Bleeding.
6
6
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Transradial versus transfemoral, outcome: 1.22 Access site complications.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Achenbach 2008 {published data only}
    1. Achenbach S, Ropers D, Kallert L, Turan N, Krahner R, Wolf T, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and intervention in patients above 75 years of age. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2008;72:629‐35. - PubMed
Akturk 2014 {published data only}
    1. Akturk E, Kurtoglu E, Ermis N, Acikgoz N, Yagmur J, Altuntas MS, et al. Comparison of pain levels of transradial versus transfemoral coronary catheterization: a prospective and randomized study. Anadolu Kardiyoloji Dergisi [Anatolian Journal of Cardiology] 2014;14:140‐6. - PubMed
Benit 1997 {published data only}
    1. Benit E, Missault L, Eeman T, Carlier M, Muyldermans L, Materne P, et al. Brachial, radial, or femoral approach for elective Palmaz‐Schatz stent implantation: a randomized comparison. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis 1997;41:124‐30. - PubMed
Bernat 2014 {published data only}
    1. Bernat I, Horak D, Stasek J, Mates M, Pesek J, Ostadal P, et al. ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI‐RADIAL trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2014;63:964‐72. - PubMed
Brasselet 2007 {published data only}
    1. Brasselet C, Tassan S, Nazeyrollas P, Hamon M, Metz D. Randomised comparison of femoral versus radial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention using abciximab in acute myocardial infarction: results of the FARMI Trial. Heart 2007;93:1556‐61. - PMC - PubMed
Brueck 2009 {published data only}
    1. Brueck M, Bandorski D, Kramer W, Wieczorek M, Höltgen R, Tillmanns H. A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. JACC Cardiovascular Interventions 2009;2:1047‐54. - PubMed
Cantor 2005 {published data only}
    1. Cantor WJ, Puley G, Natarajan MK, Dzavik V, Madan M, Fry A, et al. Radial versus femoral access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention with adjunct glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in acute myocardial infarction‐the RADIAL‐AMI pilot randomized trial. American Heart Journal 2005;150:543‐9. - PubMed
Cooper 1999 {published data only}
    1. Cooper CJ, El‐Shiekh RA, Cohen DJ, Blaesing L, Burket MW, Basu A, et al. Effect of transradial access on quality of life and cost of cardiac catheterization: a randomized comparison. American Heart Journal 1999;138(3):430‐6. - PubMed
De Andrade 2017 {published data only}
    1. Andrade PB, Mattos LA, Rinaldi FS, Bienert IC, Barbosa RA, Labrunie A, et al. Comparison of a vascular closure device versus the radial approach to reduce access site complications in non‐ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: the Angio‐seal versus the radial approach in acute coronary syndrome trial. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2017;89:976‐82. - PubMed
    1. Andrade P, Mattos L, Tebet M, Rinaldi F, Esteves V, Nogueira E, et al. Design and rationale of the AngioSeal versus the Radial approach In acute coronary SyndromE (ARISE) trial: a randomized comparison of a vascular closure device versus the radial approach to prevent vascular access site complications in non‐ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients. Trials 2013;14:435. - PMC - PubMed
Gan 2009 {published data only}
    1. Gan L, Lib Q, Liuc R, Zhaoc Y, Qiuc J, Liao Y. Effectiveness and feasibility of transradial approaches for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Journal of Nanjing Medical University 2009;23(4):270‐4.
He 2012 {published data only}
    1. He F, Zhang H, Li HM, Liu Y, Xing XC, Gu XF, et al. Clinical studies on different coronary artery interventional therapies through femoral artery or radial artery approaches. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue za Zhi 2012;33(5):534‐5. - PubMed
Hou 2010 {published data only}
    1. Hou L, Wei YD, Li WM, Xu WY. Comparative study on transradial versus transfemoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in Chinese patients with acute myocardial infarction. Saudi Medical Journal 2010;31(2):158‐62. - PubMed
Jolly 2011 {published data only}
    1. Jolly SS, Cairns J, Niemela K, Steg PG, Natarajan MK, Cheema AN, 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. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions 2013;6:258‐66. - PubMed
    1. Jolly SS, Cairns J, Yusuf S, Niemela K, Steg PG, Worthley M, et al. Procedural volume and outcomes with radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2014;63:954‐63. - PubMed
    1. Jolly SS, Niemela K, Xavier D, Widimsky P, Budaj A, Valentin V, et al. Design and rationale of the radial versus femoral access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial: a randomized comparison of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes. American Heart Journal 2011;161:254‐60. - PubMed
    1. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, Niemela K, Xavier D, Widimsky P, 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;377:1409‐20. - PubMed
    1. Mehta SR, Jolly SS, Cairns J, Niemela K, Rao SV, Cheema AN, et al. Effects of radial versus femoral artery access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST‐segment elevation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2012;60:2490‐9. - PubMed
Kiemeneij 1997 {published data only}
    1. Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, Slagboom T, Wieken R. A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1997;29(6):1269‐75. - PubMed
Koltowski 2014 {published data only}
    1. Koltowski L, Filipiak KJ, Kochman J, Pietrasik A, Huczek Z, Balsam P, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of radial vs. femoral approach in primary percutaneous coronary intervention in STEMI ‐ randomized, control trial. Hellenic Journal of Cardiology 2016;57(3):198‐202. - PubMed
    1. Koltowski L, Filipiak KJ, Kochman J, Pietrasik A, Rdzanek A, Huczek Z, et al. Access for percutaneous coronary intervention in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: radial vs. femoral ‐ a prospective, randomised clinical trial (OCEAN RACE). Kardiologia Polska 2014;72(7):604‐11. - PubMed
    1. Koltowski L, Filipiak KJ, Tomaniak M, Kochman J, Pietrasik A, Rdzanek A, et al. A prospective randomised comparison of minor bleedings in transradial vs. transfemoral access percutaneous coronary interventions for STEMI: a new FEMORAL bleeding classification. Kardiologia Polska 2014;72(9):790‐7. - PubMed
    1. Koltowski L, Koltowska‐Haggstrom M, Filipiak KJ, Kochman J, Golicki D, Pietrasik A, et al. Quality of life in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention ‐ radial versus femoral access (from the OCEAN RACE Trial). American Journal of Cardiology 2014;114:516‐21. - PubMed
Lange 2006 {published data only}
    1. Lange HW, Boetticher H. Randomized comparison of operator radiation exposure during coronary angiography and intervention by radial or femoral approach. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2006;67:12‐6. - PubMed
Li 2007 {published data only}
    1. Li WM, Li Y, Zhao JY, Duan YN, Sheng L, Yang BF, et al. Safety and feasibility of emergent percutaneous coronary intervention with the transradial access in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Chinese Medical Journal 2007;120(7):598‐600. - PubMed
Louvard 2001 {published data only}
    1. Louvard Y, Lefevre T, Allain A, Morice M. Coronary angiography through the radial or the femoral approach: the CARAFE study. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2001;52:181‐7. - PubMed
Louvard 2004 {published data only}
    1. Louvard Y, Benamer H, Garot P, Hildick‐Smith D, Loubeyre C, Rigattieri S, et al. Comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and angioplasty in octogenarians (the OCTOPLUS study). American Journal of Cardiology 2004;94:1177‐80. - PubMed
Mann 1998 {published data only}
    1. Mann T, Cubeddu G, Bowen J, Schneider JE, Arrowood M, Newman WN, et al. Stenting in acute coronary syndromes: a comparison of radial versus femoral access sites. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1998;32:572‐6. - PubMed
Michael 2013 {published data only}
    1. Michael TT, Alomar M, Papayannis A, Mogabgab O, Patel VG, Rangan BV, et al. A randomized comparison of the transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary artery bypass graft angiography and intervention: the RADIAL‐CABG Trial (RADIAL Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Angiography and Intervention). JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions 2013;6:1138‐44. - PubMed
Rao 2014 {published data only}
    1. Hess CN, Krucoff MW, Sheng S, Anstrom KJ, Barham WB, Gilchrist IC, et al. Comparison of quality‐of‐life measures after radial versus femoral artery access for cardiac catheterization in women: results of the Study of Access Site for Enhancement of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Women quality‐of‐life substudy. American Heart Journal 2015;170:371‐9. - PubMed
    1. Hess CN, Rao SV, Kong DF, Aberle LH, Anstrom KJ, Gibson CM, et al. Embedding a randomized clinical trial into an ongoing registry infrastructure: unique opportunities for efficiency in design of the Study of Access site For Enhancement of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Women (SAFE‐PCI for Women). American Heart Journal 2013;166(3):421‐8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rao SV, Hess CN, Barham B, Aberle LH, Anstrom KJ, Patel TB, et al. A registry‐based randomized trial comparing radial and femoral approaches in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SAFE‐PCI for Women (Study of Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women) trial. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions 2014;7:857‐67. - PubMed
Reddy 2004 {published data only}
    1. Reddy BK, Brewster PS, Walsh T, Burket MW, Thomas WJ, Cooper CJ. Randomized comparison of rapid ambulation using radial, 4 French femoral access, or femoral access with AngioSeal closure. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2004;62:143‐9. - PubMed
Romagnoli 2012 {published data only}
    1. Romagnoli E, Biondi‐Zoccai G, Sciahbasi A, Politi L, Rigattieri S, Pendenza 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. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2012;60(24):2481‐9. - PubMed
Saito 2003 {published data only}
    1. Saito S, Tanaka S, Hiroe Y, Miyashita Y, Takahashi S, Tanaka K, et al. Comparative study on transradial approach vs. transfemoral approach in primary stent implantation for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results of the test for myocardial infarction by prospective unicenter randomization for access sites (TEMPURA) trial. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2003;59:26‐33. - PubMed
Santas 2009 {published data only}
    1. Santas E, Bodi V, Sanchis J, Núñez J, Mainar L, Miñana G, et al. The left radial approach in daily practice. A randomized study comparing femoral and right and left radial approaches. Revista Espanola de Cardiologia 2009;62(5):482‐90. - PubMed
Schernthaner 2018 {published data only}
    1. Schernthaner C, Hammerer M, Harb S, Heigert M, Hoellinger K, Lassnig E. Radial versus femoral access site for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients suffering acute myocardial infarction: a randomized prospective multicenter trial. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 2018;130(5‐6):182‐9. - PubMed
Slagboom 2005 {published data only}
    1. Slagboom T, Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Wieken R. Outpatient coronary angioplasty: feasible and safe. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2005;64:421‐7. - PubMed
Valgimigli 2015 {published data only}
    1. Ando G, Cortese B, Frigoli E, et al. Acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale of the AKI‐MATRIX (Acute Kidney Injury‐Minimizing Adverse Hemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX) sub‐study. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2015;86:950‐7. - PubMed
    1. Ando G, Russo F, Gargiulo G, Russo N, Windecker S, Salomone M, et al. Acute Kidney Injury After Radial or Femoral Access for Invasive Acute Coronary Syndrome Management: AKI‐MATRIX. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2017;69(21):2592‐603. - PubMed
    1. Sciahbasi A, Frigoli E, Sarandrea A, Rothenbühler M, Calabrò P, Lupi A, et al. Radiation Exposure and Vascular Access in Acute Coronary Syndromes: the RAD‐Matrix Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2017;69(20):2530‐7. - PubMed
    1. Sciahbasi A, Frigoli E, Sarandrea A, Rothenbühler M, Calabrò P, Lupi A, et al. Randomized comparison of operator radiation exposure comparing transradial and transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary procedures: rationale and design of the minimizing adverse haemorrhagic events by Transradial access site and systemic implementation of angioX ‐ RAdiation Dose study (RAD‐MATRIX). Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine 2014;15(4):209‐13. - PubMed
    1. Valgimigli M, Calabro P, Cortese B, Frigoli E, Garducci S, Rubartelli P, et al. Scientific Foundation and Possible Implications for Practice of the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX (MATRIX) Trial. Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research 2014;7:101‐11. - PubMed
Wang 2012 {published data only}
    1. Wang YB, Fu XH, Wang XC, Gu XS, Zhao YJ, Hao GZ, et al. Randomized comparison of radial versus femoral approach for patients with STEMI undergoing early PCI following intravenous thrombolysis. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 2012;24(8):412‐6. - PubMed
Ziakas 2010 {published data only}
    1. Ziakas AG, Koskinas KC, Gavrilidis S, Giannoglou GD, Hadjimiltiades S, Gourassas I. Radial versus femoral access for orally anticoagulated patients. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2010;76:493‐9. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Bhat 2017 {published data only}
    1. Bhat FA, Changal KH, Raina H, Tramboo NA, Rather HA. Transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty ‐ a prospective, randomized comparison. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 2017;17(1):23. - PMC - PubMed
Chodor 2009 {published data only}
    1. Chodor P, Krupa H, Kurek T, Sokal A, Swierad M, Was T, et al. RADIal versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (RADIAMI): a prospective, randomized, single‐center clinical trial. Cardiology Journal 2009;16(4):332‐40. - PubMed
Chodor 2011 {published data only}
    1. Chodor P, Kurek T, Kowalczuk A, Swierad M, Was T, Honisz G, et al. Radial vs femoral approach with StarClose clip placement for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction. RADIAMI II: a prospective, randomised, single centre trial. Kardiologia Polska 2011;69(8):763‐71. - PubMed
Genereux 2011 {published data only}
    1. Genereux P, Mehran R, Palmerini T, Caixeta A, Kirtane AJ, Lansky AJ, et al. Radial access in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: the HORIZONS‐AMI trial. EuroIntervention 2011;7(8):905‐16. - PubMed
Kallinikou 2016 {published data only}
    1. Kallinikou Z, Puricel SG, Ryckx N, Togni M, Baeriswyl G, Stauffer JC, et al. Radiation exposure of the Operator During Coronary Interventions (from the RADIO Study). American Journal of Cardiology 2016;118(2):188‐94. - PubMed
Marti 2015 {published data only}
    1. Marti V, Brugaletta S, Garcia‐Picart J, Delgado G, Cequier A, Iniguez A, et al. Radial versus femoral access for angioplasty of ST‐segment elevation acute myocardial infarction with second‐generation drug‐eluting stents. Revista Espanola de Cardiologia 2015;68(1):47‐53. - PubMed
Qi 2017 {published data only}
    1. Qi G, Sun Q, Xia Y, Wei L. Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention through the left radial artery is associated with less vascular complications than emergency percutaneous coronary intervention through the femoral artery. Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2017;72(1):1‐4. - PMC - PubMed
Scalone 2014 {published data only}
    1. Scalone G, Brugaletta S, Martin‐Yuste V, Seixo F, Cotes C, Gomez‐Monterrosas O, et al. RAndomized Comparison of raDIal vs. femorAL access for routine catheterization of heart transplant patients (RADIAL‐heart transplant study). Transplantation Proceedings 2014;46(10):3262‐7. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Akturk 2012 {published data only}
    1. Akturk E, Kurtoglu E, Ermis N, Acikgoz N, Yagmu J, Altuntas MS, et al. A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty: which approach is suitable for which patient?. International Journal of Cardiology 2012;155:S39.
Dorniak 2009 {published data only}
    1. Dorniak W, Pinna GD, Klaudel J, Lajkowski Z, Pawlowski K, Krasowski W, et al. Procedural characteristics of radial versus femoral arterial access during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in STEMI patients. European Heart Journal 2009;30(Suppl):334.
Gavrilidis 2009 {published data only}
    1. Gavrilidis S, Giannoglou G, Gourasas I, Koskinas K, Parharidis G, Stefanidis T, et al. A randomized comparison of the radial and femoral approaches for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention during uninterrupted oral anticoagulation: preliminary results. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2009;73:S85‐6.
Koltowski 2012 {published data only}
    1. Koltowski L, Filipiak K, Kochman J, Opolski G, Pietrasik A. Lower periprocedural quality of life in STEMI patients undergoing PCI with femoral access. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2012;60(17):B119‐20.
Li 2011 {published data only}
    1. Li X, Chen Q, Wang Z, Ke D, Wu Q. Comparison on transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty in the elderly with coronary heart disease. Chinese Journal of Interventional Imaging and Therapy 2011;8(4):259‐62.
Mann 1996 {published data only}
    1. Mann JT 3rd, Cubeddu MG, Schneider JE, Arrowood M. Right radial access for PTCA: a prospective study demonstrates reduced complications and hospital charges. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 1996;8(Suppl D):40D‐4D. - PubMed
Skvaril 2012 {published data only}
    1. Skvaril J, Cernohous M, Jarkovsky P, Kockova R, Maly M, Sedlon P. Increased radiation exposure in transradial approach. A real drawback or an obsolete problem?. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2012;60(17):B114.
Wei 2006 {published data only}
    1. Wei Y, Fu X, Sun S. The comparative study on psychological influence of transradial vs transfemoral artery access for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2006;21(3):349‐52.

References to ongoing studies

ARISE‐2 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Vascular Closure Device versus Transradial Approach in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (ARISE‐2). Ongoing study January 2016.
SAFARI‐STEMI {published and unpublished data}
    1. Femoral versus Radial Access for Primary PCI (SAFARI‐STEMI). Ongoing study July 2011.

Additional references

Agostoni 2004
    1. Agostoni P, Biondi‐Zoccai G, Benedictis M, Rigattieri S, Turri M, Anselmi M, et al. Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures: systematic overview and meta‐analysis of randomized trials. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2004;44(2):349‐56. - PubMed
AHA 2015
    1. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cereek B, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2015:CIR.0000000000000336.
Almany 1999
    1. Almany SL, O'Neill WW. Radial Artery Access for Diagnostic and Interventional Procedures. Ann Arbor (MI): Accumed Systems, 1999.
Alonzo 2016
    1. Alonzo A, Rigattieri S, Giovannelli F, Russo C, Sciahbasi A, Berni A, et al. Transfemoral approach with systematic use of FemoSeal closure device compared to transradial approach in primary angioplasty. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2016;87(5):849‐54. - PubMed
Ando 2015
    1. Ando G, Capodanno D. Radial versus femoral access in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 2015;163(12):932‐40. - PubMed
Ando 2016
    1. Ando G, Porto I, Montalescot G, Bolognese L, Trani C, Oreto G, et al. Radial access in patients with acute coronary syndrome without persistent ST‐segment elevation: systematic review, collaborative meta‐analysis, and meta‐regression. International Journal of Cardiology 2016;222:1031‐9. - PubMed
Bertrand 2012
    1. Bertrand OF, Belisle P, Joyal D, Costerousse O, Rao SV, Jolly SS, et al. Comparison of transradial and femoral approaches for percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian meta‐analysis. American Heart Journal 2012;163(4):632‐48. - PubMed
Campeau 1989
    1. Campeau L. Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis 1989;16(1):3‐7. - PubMed
Dal Molin 2015
    1. Dal Molin A, Faggiano F, Bertoncini F, Buratti G, Busca E, Casarotto R, et al. Bed rest for preventing complications after transfemoral cardiac catheterisation: a protocol of systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Systematic Reviews 2015;4:47. - PMC - PubMed
Del Furia 2016
    1. Furia F, Giustino G, Chieffo A. Targeting transradial approach: an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis. Panminerva Medica 2016;58(4):329‐40. - PubMed
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Christoph M. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629. - PMC - PubMed
ESC 2015
    1. Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, Mueller C, Valgimigli M, Andreotti F, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST‐segment elevation. European Heart Journal 2016;37(3):267‐315. - PubMed
ESC‐EACTS 2010
    1. The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio‐Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European Journal of Cardio‐Thoracic Surgery 2010;38(Suppl 1):S1‐S52. - PubMed
Ferrante 2016
    1. Ferrante G, Rao SV, Juni P, Costa BR, Reimers B, Condorelli G, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions across the entire spectrum of patients with coronary artery disease: a meta‐analysis of randomized trials. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions 2016;9(14):1419‐34. - PubMed
Gandhi 2015
    1. Gandhi S, Kakar R, Overgaard CB. Comparison of radial to femoral PCI in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 2015;40(1):108‐17. - PubMed
GRADEpro 2014 [Computer program]
    1. GRADE Working Group, McMaster University. GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 9 August 2016. Hamilton (ON): GRADE Working Group, McMaster University, 2014.
He 2014
    1. He P, Yang Y, Hu F. Transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients: a systematic overview and meta‐analysis. Chinese Medical Journal 2014;127(6):1110‐7. - PubMed
Hess 2014
    1. Hess C, Peterson E, Neely M, Dai D, Hillegass W, Krucoff M, et al. The learning curve for transradial percutaneous coronary intervention among operators in the United States. Circulation 2014;129:2277‐86. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Hsueh 2017
    1. Hsueh SK, Cheng CI, Fang HY, Omran MM, Liu WH, Chung WJ, et al. Feasibility and safety of transulnar catheterization in ipsilateral radial artery occlusion. International Heart Journal 2017;58(3):313‐9. - PubMed
Huang 2016
    1. Huang F, Huang B, Wang P, Zhang C, Zuo Z, Liao Y, et al. Gender disparity in the safety and efficacy of radial and femoral access for coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta‐Analysis. Angiology 2016;67(9):810‐9. - PubMed
Jang 2012
    1. Jang JS, Jin HY, Seo JS, Yang TH, Kim DK, Kim DK, et al. The transradial versus the transfemoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. EuroIntervention 2012;8(4):501‐10. - PubMed
Jolly 2009
    1. Jolly SS, Amlani S, Hamon M, Yusuf S, Mehta SR. 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. American Heart Journal 2009;157(1):132‐40. - PubMed
Kim 2011
    1. Kim J, Yoon J. Transradial approach as a default route in coronary artery interventions. Korean Circulation Journal 2011;41(1):1‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Kotowycz 2012
    1. Kotowycz M, Džavík V. Radial artery patency after transradial catheterization. Circulation: Cardiovascular Intervention 2012;5:127‐33. - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Liu 2015
    1. Liu P, Gao XL, Li BF, Ding XZ, Wang ZH, Dang YP, et al. Radial versus femoral artery access for percutaneous coronary angiography and intervention: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials in Chinese population. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 2015;8(10):17151‐66. - PMC - PubMed
MECIR 2016
    1. Higgins JP, Lasserson T, Chandler J, Tovey D, Churchill R. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Cochrane: London, Version 1.05 2016.
Mitchell 2012
    1. Mitchell MD, Hong JA, Lee BY, Umscheid CA, Bartsch SM, Don CW. Systematic review and cost‐benefit analysis of radial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 2012;5(4):454‐62. - PMC - PubMed
NICE 2013
    1. NICE guidelines [CG167]. Myocardial infarction with ST‐segment elevation: acute management, 2013. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg167/chapter/1‐recommendations (accessed prior to 29 March 2018).
Pancholy 2015
    1. Pancholy SB, Palamaner Subash Shantha G, Romagnoli E, Kedev S, Bernat I, Rao SV, et al. Impact of access site choice on outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. American Heart Journal 2015;170(2):353‐61. - PubMed
Plourde 2015
    1. Plourde G, Pancholy SB, Nolan J, Jolly S, Rao SV, Amhed I, et al. Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lancet 2015;386(10009):2192‐203. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Ruiz‐Rodriguez 2016
    1. Ruiz‐Rodriguez E, Asfour A, Lolay G, Ziada KM, Abdel‐Latif AK. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of major cardiovascular outcomes for radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Southern Medical Journal 2016;109(1):61‐76. - PMC - PubMed
Schünemann 2009
    1. Schünemann HJ. GRADE: from grading the evidence to developing recommendations. A description of the system and a proposal regarding the transferability of the results of clinical research to clinical practice [GRADE: Von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung. Beschreibung des Systems und Losungsbeitrag zur Ubertragbarkeit von Studienergebnissen]. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen 2009;103(6):391‐400. - PubMed
Shah 2017
    1. Shah R, Askari R, Haji S, Rashid A. Mortality and operator experience with vascular access for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a pairwise and network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Cardiology 2017;248:114‐9. - PubMed
Sirker 2016
    1. Sirker A, Kwok C, Kotronias R, Bagur R, Bertrand O, Butler R, et al. Influence of access site choice for cardiac catheterization on risk of adverse neurological events: asystematic review and meta‐analysis. American Heart Journal 2016;181:107‐19. - PubMed
Taggart 2013
    1. Taggart DP. Stents or surgery in coronary artery disease in 2013. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery 2013;2:431‐4. - PMC - PubMed
Triantafyllou 2009
    1. Triantafyllou K. Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes: a case report and review of the literature. Hospital Chronicles 2009; Vol. 4, issue 4:166‐71.
Venkitachalam 2009
    1. Venkitachalam L, Kip KE, Selzer F, Wilensky RL, Slater J, Mulukutla SR, et al. Twenty‐year evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention and its impact on clinical outcomes: a report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute‐sponsored, multicenter 1985‐1986 PTCA and 1997‐2006 dynamic registries. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions 2009;2(1):6‐13. - PMC - PubMed
Vorobcsuk 2009
    1. Vorobcsuk A, Konyi A, Aradi D, Horvath IG, Ungi I, Louvard Y, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction. Systematic overview and meta‐analysis. American Heart Journal 2009;158(5):814‐21. - PubMed
Watt 2009
    1. Watt J, Oldroyd KG. Radial versus femoral approach for high‐speed rotational atherectomy. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2009;74(4):550‐4. - PubMed
Wensley 2008
    1. Wensley C, Kent B, McAleer MB, Savage SM, Stewart JT. Pain relief for the removal of femoral sheath after percutaneous coronary intervention. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006043.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
WHO 2017
    1. World Health Organization (WHO). Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs317/en/ (accessed prior to 17 April 2018).

Publication types

MeSH terms