Comparison of Radial Access, Guided Femoral Access, and Non-Guided Femoral Access Among Women Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

This study was conducted to determine the association between radial access, guided femoral access, and non-guided femoral access on postprocedural bleeding and vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Bleeding events and major vascular complications after PCI are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and cost. While the radial approach has been shown to be superior to the femoral approach in reducing bleeding and vascular complications, whether the use of micropuncture, fluoroscopy, or ultrasound mitigates these differences is unknown.We conducted a post hoc analysis of women in the SAFE-PCI for Women trial who underwent PCI and had the access method identified (n = 643). The primary endpoint of postprocedure bleeding or vascular complications occurring within 72 hours or at discharge was adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee and was compared based on three categories of access technique: radial, guided femoral (fluoroscopy, micropuncture, ultrasound), or non-guided femoral (none of the aforementioned). Differences between the groups were determined using multivariate logistic regression using radial access as the reference.Of the PCI population, 330 underwent radial access, 228 underwent guided femoral access, and 85 underwent non-guided femoral access. There was a statistically significant lower incidence of the primary endpoint with radial access vs non-guided femoral access; however, there was no significant difference between radial approach and femoral access guided by fluoroscopy, micropuncture, or ultrasound.This post hoc analysis demonstrates that while radial access is safer than non-guided femoral access, guided femoral access appears to be associated with similar bleeding events or vascular complications as radial access.