Transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock: A radial-first centre experience and meta-analysis of published studies

Sex-Related Differences in Patient Characteristics, Hemodynamics, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock: INOVA-SHOCK Registry

Background

Little is known about sex-related differences in outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated within a standardized team-based approach (STBA).

Methods

We evaluated 520 consecutive patients (151 women and 369 men) with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) in a single-center registry (January 2017-December 2019) and examined outcomes according to sex and CS phenotype. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, major bleeding, vascular complications, and stroke.

Results

Women with AMI-CS had higher baseline acuity (CardShock score: female [F]: 5.5 vs male [M]: 4.0; P = .04). Women with HF-CS more often presented with cardiac arrest (F: 12.4% vs M: 2.4%; P< .01) and had higher rates of vasopressor use (F: 70.8% vs M: 58.0%; P = .04) and mechanical circulatory support (F: 46.1% vs M: 32.5%; P = .04). There were no sex-related differences in in-hospital mortality for AMI-CS (F: 45.2% vs M: 36.9%; P = .28) and HF-CS (F: 28.1% vs M: 24.5%; P = .56). Women with HF-CS experienced higher rates of major bleeding (F: 25.8% vs M: 13.7%; P = .02) and vascular complications (F: 15.7% vs M: 6.1%; P = .01). However, female sex was not an independent predictor of these complications. No sex differences in survival were noted at 1 year.

Conclusions

Within an STBA, although women with AMI-CS and HF-CS presented with higher acuity, they experienced similar in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, stroke, and 30-day readmissions as men. Further research is needed to better understand the extent to which historical differences in CS outcomes can be mitigated by an STBA.

Stroke risk in radial versus femoral approach in coronary intervention: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Peri-cardiac catheterization (CC) stroke is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Little is known about any potential difference in stroke risk between transradial (TR) and transfemoral (TF) approaches. We explored this question through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from 1980 to June 2022. Randomized trials and observational studies comparing radial versus femoral access CC or intervention that reported stroke events were included. A random-effects model was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The total population in our 41 pooled studies comprised 1 112 136 patients - average age 65 years, women averaging 27% in TR and 31% in TF approaches. Primary analysis of 18 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that included a total of 45 844 patients showed that there was no statistical significance in stroke outcomes between the TR approach and the TF approach [odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-1.06, P -value = 0.013, I2 = 47.7%]. Furthermore, meta-regression analysis of RCTs including procedural duration between those two access sites showed no significance in stroke outcomes (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86-1.34, P -value = 0.921, I2 = 0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in stroke outcomes between the TR approach and the TF approach.

Outcomes and Institutional Variation in Arterial Access Among Patients With AMI and Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing PCI

BACKGROUND

Contemporary data comparing the outcomes of transradial access (TRA) vs transfemoral access (TFA) among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited.

OBJECTIVES

This study examines in-hospital outcomes and institutional variation among patients with AMI-CS undergoing TRA-PCI vs TFA-PCI.

METHODS

Patients admitted with AMI-CS from the NCDR CathPCI registry between April 2018 and June 2021 were included. Multivariable logistic regression and inverse probability weighting models were used to assess the association between access site and in-hospital outcomes. A falsification analysis using non-access site-related bleeding was performed.

RESULTS

Among 35,944 patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, 25.6% were performed with TRA. The proportion of TRA-PCI increased over the study period (22.0% in the second quarter of 2018 vs 29.1% in the second quarter of 2021; P-trend <0.001). Significant institutional-level variability in the use of TRA-PCI was also observed: 20.9% of all sites using TRA in <2% of PCIs (low utilization) vs 1.9% of all sites using TRA in >80% of PCIs (high utilization). Patients undergoing TRA-PCI had a significantly lower adjusted incidence of major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.76), mortality (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.69-0.78), vascular complications (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54-0.84), and new dialysis (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77-0.97). There was no difference in non-access site related bleeding (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.84-1.03). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar benefit with TRA-PCI among patients without arterial cross-over. There were no significant interactions observed between TRA-PCI with mechanical circulatory support and in-hospital outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large nationwide contemporary analysis of patients with AMI-CS, about quarter of PCIs were performed via TRA with wide variability across US institutions. TRA-PCI was associated with significantly lower incidence of in-hospital major bleeding, mortality, vascular complications, and new dialysis. This benefit was observed irrespective of mechanical circulatory support use.

Early exploration of the economic impact of transradial access (TRA) versus transfemoral access (TFA) for neurovascular procedures in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Transfemoral access (TFA) is the primary access approach for neurointerventional procedures. Transradial access (TRA) is established in cardiology due to its lower complications, yet, it is at its early stages in neuroprocedures. This study performs an early exploration of the economic impact associated with the introduction of TRA in diagnostic and therapeutic neuroprocedures from the Spanish NHS perspective.

METHODS

An economic model was developed to estimate the cost and clinical implications of using TRA compared to TFA. Costs considered access-related, complications and recovery time costs obtained from local databases and experts' inputs. Clinical inputs were sourced from the literature. A panel of eight experts from different Spanish hospitals, validated or adjusted the values based on local experience. Hypothetical cohorts of 10,000 and 1000 patients were considered for diagnostic and therapeutic neuroprocedures respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

TRA in diagnostic procedures was associated with lower costs with savings ranging between €486 and €157 depending on the TFA recovery time considered. TRA is estimated to lead to 158 fewer access-site complications. In therapeutic procedures, TRA resulted in 76.4 fewer complications and was estimated to be cost-neutral with an incremental cost of €21.56 per patient despite recovery times were not included for this group. Variation of the parameters in the sensitivity analysis did not change the direction of the results.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical data was obtained from literature validated by experts therefore results generalizability is limited. In therapeutic neuroprocedures, there is an experience imbalance between approaches and recovery times were not included hence the total impact is not fully captured.

CONCLUSIONS

The early economic model suggests that implementing TRA is associated with reduced costs and complications in diagnostic procedures. In therapeutic procedures, TRA lead to fewer complications and it is estimated to be cost-neutral, however its full potential still needs to be quantified.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with less bleeding and mortality than transfemoral access (TFA). However, patients in cardiogenic shock (CS) are more often treated via TFA. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of TRA vs. TFA in CS.

METHODS

Systematic review was performed querying PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov for studies comparing TRA to TFA in PCI for CS. Outcomes included in-hospital, 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, major and access site bleeding, TIMI3 (thrombolytics in myocardial infarction) flow, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects models.

RESULTS

Six prospective and eight retrospective studies (TRA, n = 8032; TFA, n = 23 031) were identified. TRA was associated with lower in-hospital (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.66, P < 0.0001), 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, as well as less in-hospital major (RR 0.41, 0.31-0.56, P < 0.001) and access site bleeding (RR 0.42, 0.23-0.77, P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences in post-PCI coronary flow grade, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume between TRA vs. TFA.

CONCLUSIONS

In PCI for STEMI with CS, TRA is associated with significantly lower mortality and bleeding complications than TFA while achieving similar TIMI3 flow and procedural success rates.

Association of Baseline Anemia with Mid-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Trans-Radial Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Radial access is recommended for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), because it has fewer bleeding complications than trans-femoral PCI. However, even if trans-radial PCI is chosen, patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presenting with anemia on admission might have poor clinical outcomes. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate whether anemia on admission was associated with mid-term clinical outcomes in patients who underwent trans-radial primary PCI. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent acute myocardial infarction, and readmission for heart failure. A total of 288 consecutive patients with STEMI who underwent trans-radial primary PCI were divided into an anemia group (n = 79) and a non-anemia group (n = 209). The median follow-up duration was 301 days. The anemia group was significantly older than the non-anemia group (77.3 ± 11.9 versus 64.4 ± 12.7 years, respectively; P < 0.001). There were significantly more females in the anemia group than in the non-anemia group (36.7% versus 14.4%, respectively; P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the composite outcome-free survival was significantly worse in the anemia group than in the non-anemia group (P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox hazard model analysis revealed that hemoglobin levels on admission were significantly associated with the composite outcome (per 1 g/dL increase: hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.66-0.88, P < 0.001) after controlling for confounding factors. In conclusion, baseline anemia was significantly associated with poor clinical outcomes. Patients with STEMI presenting with anemia should be managed carefully, even if trans-radial primary PCI is chosen.

Transition to Transradial Access for Mechanical Thrombectomy—Lessons Learned and Comparison to Transfemoral Access in a Single-Center Case Series

BACKGROUND

Trends in mechanical thrombectomy have emphasized larger bore aspiration catheters that may be difficult to deploy from a radial access point due to size constraints or need to obtain sheathless access. As such, many neurointerventionists are reticent to attempt thrombectomy through transradial access (TRA) for fear of worse outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether mechanical thrombectomy could be achieved safely and effectively through the transradial route.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the records of patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy at our academic institute between January 2018 and January 2019, which corresponded to a time when we began to transition to TRA for neurointerventions, including mechanical thrombectomy. We compared the procedural details and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy using TRA with those using transfemoral access (TFA).

RESULTS

During the study period, 44 patients underwent mechanical thrombectomy with TRA and 129 with TFA. There was no statistically significant difference in door-to-access time, door-to-reperfusion time, or first-pass recanalization rate. There was no significant difference in modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at discharge, mRS score at last follow-up, or length of stay. There were 7 access-site complications in the TFA group and none in the TRA group. One patient in the TRA group required crossover to TFA.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical thrombectomy can be performed safely and effectively from a TRA site without compromising recanalization times or rates. TRA has superior access-site complication profiles compared to TFA.

Radial versus femoral artery access for percutaneous coronary artery intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease complicated by cardiogenic shock: Subanalysis from the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial

BACKGROUND

The use and impact of transradial artery access (TRA) compared to transfemoral artery access (TFA) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remain unclear.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial where patients presenting with MI and multivessel disease complicated by CS were randomized to a strategy of culprit-lesion-only or immediate multivessel PCI. Arterial access was left at operator's discretion. Adjudicated outcomes of interest were the composite of death or renal replacement therapy (RRT) at 30 days and 1 year. Multivariate logistic models were used to assess the association between the arterial access and outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the 673 analyzed patients, TRA and TFA were successfully performed in 118 (17.5%) and 555 (82.5%) patients, respectively. Compared to TFA, TRA was associated with a lower 30-day rate of death or RRT (37.3% vs 53.2%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.96), a lower 30-day rate of death (34.7% vs 49.7%; aOR: 0.56; 95% CI 0.33-0.96), and a lower 30-day rate of RRT (5.9% vs 15.9%; aOR: 0.40; 95% CI 0.16-0.97). No significant differences were observed regarding the 30-day risks of type 3 or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding and stroke. The observed reduction of death or RRT and death with TRA was no longer significant at 1 year (44.9% vs 57.8%; aOR: 0.85; 95% CI 0.50-1.45 and 42.4% vs 55.5%, aOR: 0.78; 95% CI 0.46-1.32, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing PCI for acute MI complicated by CS, TRA may be associated with improved early outcomes, although the reason for this finding needs further research.

Distal radial artery access in the anatomical snuffbox for coronary angiography and intervention: A single center experience

BACKGROUND

To explore the feasibility and safety of coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via the distal radial artery in the anatomical snuffbox.

METHODS

Ninety two patients who underwent CAG or PCI through distal radial artery access at The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University from September 2017 to March 2018 were included in our study. We collected baseline characteristics, number, and duration of arterial punctures, procedural success rate, postoperative compression time, the numerical rating scale (NRS) scores at 3 hours after procedure, complications, hospitalization duration.

RESULTS

The mean age was 69 ± 11years (44-92 years), and there were 57 males (62.0%). The diameter of the right distal radial artery and the more proximal right radial artery were 0.171 ± 0.05 cm, 0.213 ± 0.06 cm, respectively. On average, the number of puncture attempts was 1.52 ± 0.81, access time was 2.3 ± 1.78 minutes (0.33 - 8.72 minutes), access success was 95.7%, the postoperative compression time was 3.41 ± 0.76 hours (2-6 hours), the NRS scores at 3 hours was 1.53 ± 0.72 (1-4), and the mean hospitalization duration was 7.13 ± 4.02 days. Four patients underwent left distal radial artery access and 88 patients underwent right distal radial artery access. There were 3 local hematomas after procedure and 2 patients had vasospasm. There were no cases of major bleeding, arteriovenous fistula, radial artery occlusion, or hand numbness.

CONCLUSION

Cardiac catheterization through the distal radial artery in the snuffbox is safe and feasible. The right distal radial artery access can be routinely carried out.

RadialFirst in CHIP and Cardiogenic Shock

This article highlights the advantages and disadvantages of transradial arterial (TRA) access for a variety of presentations including acute coronary syndromes; cardiogenic shock; unprotected left main, heavily calcified coronaries; bifurcations; and chronic total occlusions. It includes techniques for overcoming challenges of using TRA access, including spasm and the need for larger bore guides. In addition, the authors review the use of ultrasound for access, percutaneous hemodynamic support via axillary approach, and tips and tricks to performing right heart catheterizations from the antecubital vein.

Impact of vascular access on outcome after PCI in patients at high bleeding risk: a pre-specified sub-analysis of the LEADERS FREE trial

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The prognostic impact of bleeding in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients depending on the location of bleeding and prognosis in nonaccess site bleeding is unknown. We aimed to assess the impact of vascular access site on bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary interventions for HBR patients at 30-day and 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

The LEADERS FREE trial included 2432 HBR PCI patients. A Biolimus A9 drug-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent for safety and efficacy. This is a predefined sub-analysis of the LEADERS FREE trial.

RESULTS

Transradial access (TRA) was used in 1454 patients (59.8%) and transfemoral access (TFA) in 978 (40.2%), according to operator preference. The safety and benefits of drug-coated stents over bare-metal stents were independent of vascular access. At 30 days and 2 years, major bleeding had occurred in 2.4% and 7.5% of TRA patients and 4.6% and 10.9% of TFA patients (P=.003), respectively. Most of these events in both groups (2.1% and 7.0% for TRA; 3.2% and 9.4% for TFA, respectively) were nonaccess site-related. TRA was associated with a significant reduction in adjusted rates of major bleeding both at 30 days (HR, 1.98; 95%CI, 1.25-3.11; P=.003) and at 2 years of follow-up (HR, 1.51; 95%CI, 1.14-2.01; P=.003). This difference was driven by both access and nonaccess bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Operators preferred TRA for most HBR patients, which was associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding events. However, most of these events in this population are unrelated to vascular access.

Temporal trends in the practice of the transradial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in a large tertiary center

OBJECTIVE

The transradial approach (TRA) has increasingly been adopted for the use of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), with reported clinical benefits. Little is known regarding the change in outcomes over time.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From our large single-center PCI registry, we have analyzed 15 429 patients in two periods - 2008-2012 (period 1) and 2013-2017 (period 2). We examined the proportions of use of TRA, the influence on in-hospital outcomes, and adjusted long-term effects.

RESULTS

The rate of TRA rose from 15.9% in period 1 to 69.1% in period 2, including in specific situations such as acute coronary syndrome, chronic total occlusion, bifurcation, calcified lesions, and unprotected left main PCI. In-hospital rates of bleeding were lower for TRA versus transfemoral artery (1.8 vs. 5.1%, overall, P < 0.001), as were rates of additional bleeding events in the following 12 months (1.3 vs. 2.4%, P < 0.001). Following multivariate analysis, use of TRA was associated with a lower 30-day and 4-year rate of the composite outcomes of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or coronary artery bypass surgery [at 4 years, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-0.96; P = 0.007, during period 1 and HR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.55-0.7; P < 0.0001 during period 2]. Interaction analysis showed a stronger effect at the latter period (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Over a decade of follow-up, TRA has gained acceptance for different PCI scenarios, including complex patients - a course which is associated with consistent short and long-term clinical benefits.

Predictors of Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (MI-CS) is a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Predictors of outcomes in MI-CS include clinical, laboratory, radiologic variables, and management strategies. This article reviews the existing literature on short- and long-term predictors and risk stratification in MI complicated by CS.

Transradial Artery Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Early revascularization is the gold standard for management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The use of transradial artery access (TRA) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased in recent years and has emerged as a safe and effective approach to PCI in high-risk patients, with advantages in reduced major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and all-cause mortality when compared with transfemoral artery access (TFA). Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated these advantages of TRA vs. TFA PCI in STEMI patients. Although there remains a lack of dedicated randomized trials in CS, observational data suggest benefits on the same endpoints as in STEMI with TRA vs. TFA PCI in CS. This review summarizes the existing literature on the use of TRA compared to TFA for STEMI and CS patients; the reduction of major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and mortality associated with TRA in STEMI and CS; and technical considerations and challenges in the care of these high-risk patient populations.

In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with rotational atherectomy radial access is safer and as efficient as femoral access

INTRODUCTION

Transfemoral approach (TFA) may be preferred access site in order to facilitate complex percutaneous procedures such as rotational atherectomy (RA). Notwithstanding, there is a growing evidence that transradial approach (TRA) is associated with lower access site complication rates and even lower mortality. The aim was to assess in-hospital and 1-year outcomes in patients undergoing RA using TRA, in comparison to TFA.

METHODS

A single center observational study included all consecutive patients, who underwent RA from 2010 to 2015. Primary endpoints were procedural success, in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints were 1-year all-cause mortality and MACE.

RESULTS

The study included 177 patients, 69% in TRA group and 31% in TFA group. Except for male sex and logistic Euroscore II there were no differences in common risk factors. There was no difference in procedural success (95% vs 87%, P = 0.07) with even a trend in favor of TRA. Performing RA via TRA lower amount of contrast volume (P = 0.009) was used and hospital stay after the procedure was shorter (P = 0.004). Periprocedural complication rates were similar, however patients with TFA had significantly higher rate of major access site bleedings (13% vs 1%, P = 0.001), with no differences in mortality and other adverse events both in-hospital and during 1-year observation.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though RA is a demanding technique, when performed via TRA allows to maintain the same procedural success and long-term results in comparison to TFA, reduces in-hospital major access site bleedings, lowers the amount of contrast media and shortens hospital stay.

Transradial versus Transfemoral access in patients undergoing peripheral artery angioplasty/stenting: A meta-analysis

Transradial (TR) access has been extensively compared to transfemoral (TF) access in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions, with TR method showing a clear benefit over the latter. However, comparative data concerning peripheral artery endovascular interventions has been limited in the literature. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted in order to compare main outcomes between TR and TF access in patients undergoing peripheral artery angioplasty and/or stenting. Main outcomes included technical success, major/minor bleeding risk, access site complications, hospital stay, death, myocardial infarction, neurological events and other procedural parameters. TR and TF access methods seem to be associated with similar early outcomes in patients undergoing non-coronary endovascular angioplasty and/or stenting although paucity of data necessitates the conduction of better designed studies.

Patient Versus Physician Variation in Use of Transradial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The prevalence of radial access for transradial catheterization remains low in the United States, occurring in only 28% of cases in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI. It is unknown whether the low adoption rate has been influenced by patient characteristics or is more operator dependent. In a 10-center study, we compared clinical and demographic characteristics among 323 radial and 1,506 femoral access percutaneous coronary intervention (PCIs) performed by 65 interventionists capable of radial PCI. We created a hierarchical logistic regression model to identify operator and patient characteristics associated with radial PCI and the median rate ratio to quantify the variation across operators. A subset was interviewed to assess health literacy and preferences in shared medical decision making. Radial access was used in 17.7% of patients. Patient factors associated with lower rate of radial PCI were previous PCI (33.4% vs 41.4%, p = 0.008), history of coronary artery bypass graft (8.4% vs 23.0%, p <0.001), and chronic total occlusion PCI (10.2% vs 17.9%, p <0.001). Operator characteristics associated with lower rate of radial PCI are being older, being longer in practice, lower number of publications, and Southern practice location. The range of radial use across operators was 1% to 99% and the median rate ratio was 1.97. Patients with radial access had lower health literacy, as assessed by the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine Revised (REALM) score (6.6 ± 2.6 vs 7.1 ± 2.0, p = 0.03) but did not differ in their preferences for shared decision making. In conclusion, our study demonstrates a high degree of variability of radial access for PCI among different operators, with few differences in patient characteristics, suggesting that improvement efforts should focus on operators.

Radial Interventions: Present and Future Indications

OPINION STATEMENT

Since its first introduction, radial access for diagnostic and interventional cardiovascular procedures has progressively evolved with advances in understanding, capabilities, and ease of operation. Numerous studies have demonstrated its safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. Overall, radial catheterization is a valid alternative to the femoral approach with additional benefits of shorter length of hospital stay and reduced patient costs when performed by experienced interventionists. Moreover, with reduced rates of access site complications and enhanced patient satisfaction, the transradial approach has emerged as the preferred vascular access route for most coronary interventions, even in cases of acute myocardial infarction.