Comparison of radial, brachial, and femoral accesses using hemostatic devices for percutaneous coronary intervention

Some studies have suggested that radial access (RA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces vascular complications and bleeding compared to femoral access (FA). The purpose of this study was to investigate the routine use of hemostatic devices and bleeding complications among RA, brachial access (BA), and FA. Between January 2015 and December 2015, 298 patients treated for PCI with RA were compared with 158 patients using BA and 206 patients using FA. The radial sheath was routinely removed with ADAPTY, the brachial sheath with BLEED SAFE, and the femoral sheath with Perclose ProGlide. In-hospital bleeding complications were investigated. Cardiogenic shock was most frequent in patients in the femoral group (RA 1.3%, BA 2.5%, FA 9.2%, p < 0.0001). The rate of major bleeding was highest in the femoral group (RA 1.0%, BA 2.5%, FA 5.3%, p = 0.01). Blood transfusion rates were highest in the femoral group (RA 0.7%, BA 1.3%, FA 4.4%, p = 0.01). Retroperitoneal bleeding was observed in 1.9% of patients in the femoral group. Patients in the brachial group had large hematomas (RA 0.7%, BA 4.4%, FA 1.5%, p = 0.01). Pseudoaneurysm formation needing intervention occurred most frequently in the brachial group (RA 0%, BA 1.3%, FA 0%, p = 0.04). In conclusion, compared to the brachial and femoral approaches, the radial approach appears to be the safest technique to avoid local vascular bleeding complications. The brachial approach has the highest risk of large hematoma and pseudoaneurysm formation among the three groups.