Transradial PCI and Same Day Discharge

  • Ali Elfandi
  • Jordan G. Safirstein
Coronary Artery Disease (D Feldman and V Voudris, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Coronary Artery Disease


Purpose of review

The evolution of cardiac catheterization has led to the development of well-refined, more effective, and safer devices that allow cardiovascular interventionalists to deliver high-quality percutaneous interventions (PCI). Transradial PCI (TRI) has gained more popularity in the USA over the past 10 years, and as experience and volume of TRI grow, studies adopting same day radial PCI protocols have emerged and are showing promising results. We sought to review the current literature on TRI and same day discharge (SDD).

Recent findings

This literature review was performed to evaluate the studies that were published over the last 17 years regarding TRI and SDD. A literature search using PubMed, Cochran database, Google Scholar, and Embase was performed for studies evaluating TRI and SDD from January 1, 2000, to August 1, 2017. Observational studies, randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and consensus statements were included in our review. We used the following terms in our search: “same day,” “same day discharge,” “outpatient,” and “ambulatory radial PCI.” Articles with data pertinent to the subject matter were included. We did not limit our searches to specific journals.


The available literature supports SDD for selected radial PCI patients. The advancement in PCI devices and pharmacology has enhanced the safety of post-PCI disposition leading to the evolution from traditional overnight stays to the development of same day discharge programs. We conclude that outpatient TRI for appropriately selected patients will be the standard of care in the future. This will lead to increased patient satisfaction, improved hospital throughput, and reduced hospital costs, without increased procedural complications.


Transradial Radial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) Same day discharge Outpatient PCI Same day PCI Ambulatory PCI 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •   Of importance ••   Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai GG, de Benedictis ML, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:349–56. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services inpatient prospective payment system 1599-F. Fiscal year 2014 final rule. August 19, 2013. Available at: 013–08-19/pdf/2013–18,956.pdf 2014. Accessed Nov. 4, 2017.
  3. 3.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Hospitals’ use of observation stays and short inpatient stays for Medicare beneficiaries. OEI-02-12-00040. July 29, 2013. Available at: Accessed November 4,2017. Accessed Nov. 4, 2017.
  4. 4.
    Bertrand O, De Larochellière R, Rodés-Cabau J, Proulx G, Gleeton O, Nguyen CM, et al. Early Discharge after Transradial Stenting of Coronary Arteries (EASY) Study Investigators. Circulation. 2006;114:2636–43. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jabara R, Gadesam R, Pendyala L, Chronos N, Crisco LV, King SB, et al. Ambulatory discharge after transradial coronary intervention: preliminary US single-center experience (Same-day TransRadial Intervention and Discharge Evaluation, the STRIDE Study). Am Heart J. 2008;156(6):1141–6. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campeau L. Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1989;16:3–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ. Percutaneous transradial artery approach for coronary stent implantation. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993;30:173–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Voudris KV, Georgiadou P, Charitakis K, Marmagkiolis K. Radial interventions: present and future indications. Curr Treat Options Cardio Med. 2016;18:2. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, Zaro T, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomized multicenter trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2465–76. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feldman DM, Swaminathan RV, Kaltenbach LA, Baklanov DV, Kim LK, Wong SC, et al. 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. 2013;127:2295–306. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Masoudi FA,Ponirakis A, de Lemos JA, Jollis JG, Kremers M, Messenger JC, et al. Trends in U.S. Cardiovascular Care: 2016 Report from 4 ACC National Cardiovascular Data Registries. doi:
  12. 12.
    •• Amin AP, Patterson M, House JA, Giersiefen H, Spertus JA, Baklanov DV, et al. Costs associated with access site and same-day discharge among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an evaluation of the current percutaneous coronary intervention care pathways in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2017;10:342–51. The financial analysis evaluating the difference between standard femoral overnight stay and same day radial PCI demonstrates the incredible cost savings that can be incurred by changing our current practice patter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Serruys PW, Strauss BH, Beatt KJ, Bertrand ME, Puel J, Rickards AF, et al. Angiographic follow-up after placement of a self-expanding coronary-artery stent. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:13–7. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Byrne RA, Joner M, Kastrati A. Stent thrombosis and restenosis: what have we learned and where are we going? The Andreas Grüntzig Lecture ESC 2014. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3320–31. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brodie B, Pokharel Y, Garg A, Kissling G, Hansen C, Milks S, et al. Predictors of early, late, and very late stent thrombosis after primary percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal and drug-eluting stents for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2012;5:1043–51. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dangas GD, Caixeta A, Mehran R, Parise H, Lansky AJ, Cristea E, et al. Frequency and predictors of stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction for the Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) Trial Investigators. Circulation. 2011;123:1745–56. Scholar
  17. 17.
    • Gilchrist IC, Rhodes DA, Zimmerman HE. A single center experience with same-day transradial-PCI patients: a contrast with published guidelines. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79(4):583–7. This small but important single center series highlights the variability in patients that are acceptable for same day discharge.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Slagboom T, Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Wieken RV, Odekerken D. Actual outpatient PTCA: results of the OUTCLAS pilot study. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent. 2001;53:204–8. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ziakas AA, Klinke BP, Mildenberger CR, Fretz DE, Williams MB, Kinloch FR, et al. Safety of same-day–discharge radial percutaneous coronary intervention: a retrospective study. Am Heart J. 2003;146:699–704. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kumar S, Anantharaman R, Das P, Hobbs J, Densem C, Ansell J, et al. Radial approach to day case intervention in coronary artery lesions (RADICAL): a single centre safety and feasibility study. Heart. 2004;90:1340–1. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oh HL, Gwon HC, Lee SM, Kim YH, Cheon IS, Cheon WJ, et al. Safety of one-day admission transradial coronary intervention. Korean Circ J. 2004;34:647–54. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wiper A, Kumar S, MacDonald J, Roberts DH. Day case transradial coronary angioplasty: a four-year single-center experience. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:549–53. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Small A, Klinke P, Della Siega A, Fretz E, Kinloch D, Mildenberger R, et al. Day procedure intervention is safe and complication free in higher risk patients undergoing transradial angioplasty and stenting. The discharge study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;70:907–12. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chaumeil A, Beygui F, Collet JP, Payot L, Choussat R, Drobinski G, et al. Feasibility of outpatient coronary angiography with “ad hoc” angioplasty. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2008;101:383–90. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chung WJ, Fang HY, Tsai TH, Yang CH, Chen CJ, Chen SM, et al. Transradial approach percutaneous coronary interventions in an out-patient clinic. Int Heart J. 2010;51:371–6. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Herman BA. Safety of same day discharge following percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart Lung Circ. 2011;20:353–6. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shah SF, Shah I, Jan H, et al. Utility of transradial coronary angioplastyin patients with chronic stable angina discharged on same day. J Postgrad Med Inst. 2012;26:138–43.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Le Corvoisier P, Gellen B, Lesault PF, Cohen R, Champagne S, Duval AM, et al. Ambulatory transradial percutaneous coronary intervention: a safe, effective, and cost-saving strategy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81:15–23. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aydin A, Gurol T, Soylu O, Dagdeviren B. Early ambulatory discharge is safe and feasible after transradial coronary interventions. IJC Heart & Vessels. 2014;3:60–3. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singh VR, Jayaraman B, Satheesh S, Pillai AA. Safety and outcomes of day care based coronary angioplasty—first report from India. Indian Heart J. 2015;67:108–13. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koutouzis M, Agelaki M, Maniotis C, Dimitriou P, Tsoulmeleas A, Matsoukis, et al. Predictors of same day discharge after percutaneous coronary interventions. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2017;18:241–4. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, Niemelä 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. Scholar
  33. 33.
    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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:2481–9. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alazzoni A, Al-Saleh A, Jolly SS. Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Thrombosis. 2012;2012:126,369. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sarno G, Lagerqvist B, Carlsson J, Olivecrona G, Nilsson J, Calais F, et al. Initial clinical experience with an everolimus eluting platinum chromium stent (Promus Element) in unselected patients from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). International Journal of Cardiology. 2013;167:146–50. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brodie BR, Garg A, Stuckey TD, Kirtane AJ, Witzenbichler B, Maehara A, et al. Fixed and modifiable correlates of drug-eluting stent thrombosis from a large All-Comers Registry Insights From ADAPT-DES. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002568. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Armstrong EJ, Kwa AT, Yeo KK, Mahmud E, Javed U, Patel M, et al. Angiographically confirmed stent thrombosis in contemporary practice: Insights from intravascular ultrasound. Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent. 2013;81:782–90. Scholar
  38. 38.
    • Chambers CE, Dehmer GJ, Cox DA, Harrington RA, Babb JD, Popma JJ, et al. Defining the length of stay following percutaneous coronary intervention: an expert consensus document from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Catheter. Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;73:847–58. An important consensus document highlighting the factors necessary to determine appropriate lengths of stay for patients.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chowdhary S, Ivanov J, Mackie K, Seidelin PH, Dzavík V. The Toronto score for in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions. Am Heart J. 2009;157:156–63. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Singh M, Rihal CS, Lennon RJ, Spertus J, Rumsfeld JS, Holmes DR Jr. Bedside estimation of risk from percutaneous coronary intervention: the New Mayo Clinic risk scores. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:701–8. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wu C, Hannan EL, Walford G, et al. A risk score to predict in-hospital mortality for percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:654–60. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2011;124:e574–651. Scholar
  43. 43.
    Amin AP, House JA, Safley DM, Chhatriwalla AK, Giersiefen H, Bremer A, et al. Costs of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2013;6:827–34. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gagnon Cardiovascular InstituteMorristown Medical CenterMorristownUSA

Personalised recommendations