Why the study?
Does the transradial approach improve clinical and economic outcomes compared to the transfemoral approach in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention?
Does the transradial approach improve clinical and economic outcomes compared to the transfemoral approach in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention?
This review highlights the clinical and economic benefits of the transradial approach for cardiac catheterization and PCI, advocating for its increased utilization.
Supports transradial access in catheterization; leaves open need for contemporary RCTs on long-term outcomes.
Cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention play an important role in the management of coronary artery disease. Although the transfemoral approach has been the traditionally dominant method, there has been an increased utilization of the transradial approach. Multiple observational studies and randomized clinical trials have shown fewer bleeding complications, reduced morbidity and mortality, improved quality of life, and better economic outcomes when the transradial approach is utilized when compared to the transfemoral approach. Despite its many benefits, utilization of this approach in certain countries including the United States has been less than optimal due to a lower adoption rates mostly driven by lack of training opportunities and decreased awareness of clinical benefits of the transradial approach. In this review, the history, observational trends, efficacy, and technical aspects of transradial cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pau et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: