European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 68–74 | Cite as

A reality check in transradial access: a single-centre comparison of transradial and transfemoral access for abdominal and peripheral intervention

  • Matthew L. Hung
  • Edward W. LeeEmail author
  • Justin P. McWilliams
  • Siddharth A. Padia
  • Pengxu Ding
  • Stephen T. Kee



The purpose of this study was to describe a single institution’s experience with transradial access (TRA) for angiographic interventions, and to compare technical success, complication rate and radiation dose of procedures performed with TRA to those performed with transfemoral access (TFA).


A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing peripheral interventions via TRA or TFA from 2015 to 2017 was performed. The cohort comprised 33 patients undergoing 44 procedures via TRA and 37 patients undergoing 44 procedures via TFA. Outcome measures were technical success, access-related complications, fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure. Differences at p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.


Baseline characteristics were similar between patients who had procedures via TRA versus those who had procedures via TFA, including age, sex and body mass index. Technical success was achieved in 41/44 (93.2%) of procedures performed via TRA, compared to 44/44 (100%) of procedures performed via TFA (p = 0.241). There were three access-related complications (6.8%) when TRA was performed, compared to none when TFA was performed (p = 0.241). Fluoroscopy time was longer in procedures performed with TRA compared to those performed with TFA (27.3 vs 20.4, p = 0.033). Dose area product (DAP) did not differ with access site choice (p = 0.186).


TRA is a safe and feasible alternative to TFA for a range of peripheral interventions. However, TRA must be performed with prudence as it is not without complications and is technically challenging, leading to longer fluoroscopy time.

Key Points

Transradial access (TRA) is feasible in a variety of peripheral interventions, achieving success in 93.2% of cases.

Access-related complications are comparable between transfemoral access (TFA) and TRA (p = 0.241), but prudence must be taken during TRA as it could be technically challenging.

Procedures performed with TRA tend to have longer fluoroscopy time compared to those performed with TFA (p = 0.033), but the DAPs are comparable (p = 0.186).


Radial artery access Femoral artery access Interventional radiology Embolisation Vascular access 



Dose area product


Percutaneous coronary intervention


Transarterial chemoembolisation


Transfemoral access


Transradial access



The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Edward W. Lee, MD, PhD.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.


• retrospective

• case-control study

• performed at one institution


  1. 1.
    Campeau L (1989) Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 16:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, Slagboom T, van der Wieken R (1997) A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study. J Am Coll Cardiol 29:1269–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Piccolo R, Galasso G, Capuano E et al (2014) Transradial versus transfemoral approach in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 9:e96127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Romagnoli E, Biondi-Zoccai G, Sciahbasi A et al (2012) 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:2481–2489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabro P et al (2015) Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 385:2465–2476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jin C, Li W, Qiao SB et al (2016) Costs and benefits associated with transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in China. J Am Heart Assoc 5(4).
  7. 7.
    Amin AP, House JA, Safley DM et al (2013) Costs of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6:827–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jolly SS, Amlani S, Hamon M, Yusuf S, Mehta SR (2009) 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. Am Heart J 157:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feldman DN, Swaminathan RV, Kaltenbach LA et al (2013) Adoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007-2012). Circulation 127:2295–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Posham R, Biederman DM, Patel RS et al (2016) Transradial approach for noncoronary interventions: a single-center review of safety and feasibility in the first 1,500 cases. J Vasc Interv Radiol 27:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thakor AS, Alshammari MT, Liu DM et al (2017) Transradial access for interventional radiology: single-centre procedural and clinical outcome analysis. Can Assoc Radiol J 68:318–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shiozawa S, Tsuchiya A, Endo S et al (2003) Transradial approach for transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with conventional transfemoral approach. J Clin Gastroenterol 37:412–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kis B, Mills M, Hoffe SE (2016) Hepatic radioembolization from transradial access: initial experience and comparison to transfemoral access. Diagn Interv Radiol 22:444–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Omary RA, Bettmann MA, Cardella JF et al (2002) Quality improvement guidelines for the reporting and archiving of interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 13:879–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barbeau GR, Arsenault F, Dugas L, Simard S, Lariviere MM (2004) Evaluation of the ulnopalmar arterial arches with pulse oximetry and plethysmography: comparison with the Allen's test in 1010 patients. Am Heart J 147:489–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Resnick NJ, Kim E, Patel RS, Lookstein RA, Nowakowski FS, Fischman AM (2014) Uterine artery embolization using a transradial approach: initial experience and technique. J Vasc Interv Radiol 25:443–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ruzsa Z, Toth K, Jambrik Z et al (2014) Transradial access for renal artery intervention. Interv Med Appl Sci 6:97–103PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dariushnia SR, Gill AE, Martin LG et al (2014) Quality improvement guidelines for diagnostic arteriography. J Vasc Interv Radiol 25:1873–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Das R, Ahmed K, Athanasiou T, Morgan RA, Belli AM (2011) Arterial closure devices versus manual compression for femoral haemostasis in interventional radiological procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34:723–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patel VG, Brayton KM, Kumbhani DJ, Banerjee S, Brilakis ES (2013) Meta-analysis of stroke after transradial versus transfemoral artery catheterization. Int J Cardiol 168:5234–5238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Al-Hakim R, Gandhi RT, Benenati JF (2017) Incident of stroke after transradial arterial access for subdiaphragmatic intervention. J Vasc Interv Radiol 28:1287–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hess CN, Peterson ED, Neely ML et al (2014) The learning curve for transradial percutaneous coronary intervention among operators in the United States: a study from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circulation 129:2277–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garg N, Madan BK, Khanna R et al (2015) Incidence and predictors of radial artery occlusion after transradial coronary angioplasty: Doppler-guided follow-up study. J Invasive Cardiol 27:106–112PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of RadiologyUCLA Medical Center, Ronald Reagan Medical Center at UCLA, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations