Key result
Radial PCI access is linked to ~71% less periprocedural bleeding versus femoral access in ACS.
Why the study?
Does radial arterial access reduce bleeding complications compared to femoral access in Japanese patients undergoing PCI?
Population
1,857 Japanese patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome or…
Comparison
Radial arterial access route for PCI vs Femoral arterial access route for PCI
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
up to 3 days
Authors
Loading...
Supports radial access consideration in Japanese ACS PCI; extends prior data but remains hypothesis-generating without randomized confirmation.
Observational (n=1,857)
Yes
Does radial arterial access reduce bleeding complications compared to femoral access in Japanese patients undergoing PCI?
Hazard Ratio: 0.288 (95% CI 0.128–0.65)
p-value: p=0.0027
Radial access for PCI is associated with a significantly lower risk of periprocedural bleeding compared to femoral access in Japanese patients with ACS or stable CAD.
Saito et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Acute coronary syndrome or coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1,857). Radial access route vs. Femoral access route was evaluated on Periprocedural bleeding (major or minor bleeding events not related to CABG) (HR 0.288, 95% CI 0.128-0.650, p=0.0027). The radial access route was associated with a significantly lower risk of periprocedural bleeding (HR 0.288) compared to the femoral access route in Japanese patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: