• Kamaran Rauf Karadakhi Shar Hospital, Ministry of Health, Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
  • Asan Baram Hasan Cardiology Trainee, Ministry of Health, Sulaimani Cardiac Center, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
  • Hemn Hassan Mohammad Cardiology Trainee, Ministry of Health, Sulaimani Cardiac Center, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
  • Razan Babarasul Jalal Sulaimani Radiology Center, Ministry of Health, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.



Trans radial, Transfemoral, Safety, Feasibility, Efficacy


Percutaneous Coronary Intervention has been done traditionally through Transfemoral route. Trans Radial route is coming up in the practice. We compared Trans Radial with Transfemoral accesses for ease of operability, time of procedure, complications, and failure rates through a cross sectional study.

To assess the efficacy, feasibility, safety and procedural variables in Trans radial approach compared with the Transfemoral Approach in patients undergoing coronary artery catheterization.

Patients and Methods:
A total of 180 patients with both chronic and acute coronary syndromes were enrolled in this study, one hundred forty 140 cases with Radial, 28 of whom were crossed to Femoral access (hence 112 Radials with 108 Right Radial and 4 Left Radial) and 68 cases with Femoral access.

Procedural time between Trans Radial and Transfemoral accesses were similar (17.39±10.33 vs 19.68±16.62 minutes P-value 0.36) respectively while among Femoral crossover group was higher (33.50±20.30 minutes P-value 0.01). The Fluoroscopy time was (5.51±4.70 in Trans Radial Vs. 7.18 ±7.65 minutes in Transfemoral P-value 0.07) were similar in both groups. Post procedure access site complications seen in (9% in Trans Radial compared to 7.35% in Transfemoral, P-value 0.048), Access site Hematoma being the most common one (6.25% in Trans Radial vs 4.4% in Transfemoral), Non-flow limiting dissections occurred in (0.89% in Trans Radial VS 1.4% Transfemoral), Radial artery perforation occurred in 1.78%, 1.4% of patients in Femoral group had Femoral artery perforation and had major bleeding.

The overall local complications were lower in Transfemoral access, except for major bleeding which is still a big concern. Both vascular Access techniques should not be considered opposite or mutually exclusive, but rather provide the Interventionist a wide spectrum of the therapeutic options.


Saeed KMI, Rasooly MH and Nejaby M. Profile of risk factors for noncommunicable diseases in major cities of Afghanistan: WHO STEP wise approach. East Mediterr Health J 2020; 26: 388-399. DOI:

World Health Organization, 2013. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013-2020.

Hussain AM and Lafta RK. Burden of non-communicable diseases in Iraq after the 2003 war. Saudi Med J 2019; 40: 72-78. DOI:

Mohammad AM, Jehangeer HI and Shaikhow SK. Prevalence and risk factors of premature coronary artery disease in patients undergoing coronary angiography in Kurdistan, Iraq. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2015; 15: 155. DOI:

Kinnaird TD, Stabile E, Mintz GS, Lee CW, Canos DA, Gevorkian N, et al. Angiography through the radial or the femoral approach. Incidences, predictors and prognostic implications of bleeding and blood transfusion following percutaneous commonly intervention. Am. J Cardiol. 2003; 92:930–3. DOI:

Sinha SK, Mishra V, Afdaali N. Coronary angiography safety between transradial and transfemoral access. Cardiol Res Pract. 2016, 2016:1-10.1155/2016/4013843

Venkitachalam, L.; Kip, K.E.; Selzer, F.; Wilensky, R.L.; Slater, J.; Mulukutla, et al. Twenty-year evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention and its impact on clinical outcomes: A report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute- sponsored, multicenter 1985–1986 PTCA and 1997–2006 dynamic registries. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2009, 2, 6–13. DOI:

Rao, S.V.; O’Grady, K.; Pieper, K.S.; Granger, C.B.; Newby, L.K.; Van de Werf, et al. Impact of Bleeding Severity on Clinical Outcomes Among Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. Am. J. Cardiol. 2005, 96, 1200–1206. DOI:

Chhatriwalla, A.K.; Amin, A.P.; Kennedy, K.F.; House, J.A.; Cohen, D.J.; Rao, et al. Association Between Bleeding Events and In-hospital Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JAMA 2013, 309, 1022–1029. DOI:

L. Campeau, “Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.3–7, 1989. DOI:

F. Kiemeneij and G. J. Laarman, “Transradial artery PalmazSchatz coronary stent implantation: results of a single-center feasibility study,” American Heart Journal, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 14– 21, 1995. DOI:

F. Kiemeneij, G. J. Laarman, and E. de Melker, “Transradial artery coronary angioplasty,” American Heart Journal, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 1995. DOI:

Saito S, Miyake S, Hosokawa G, Tanaka S, Kawamitsu K, Kaneda H, et al. Transradial coronary intervention in Japanese patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999; 46:37–41. DOI:<37::AID-CCD10>3.0.CO;2-Y

Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai GG, de Benedictis ML. Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic und interventional procedures; systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44:349 –56 DOI:

Martin, Dirk BandorskiMD, Wilfried KramerMD, Marcus WieczorekMD, Reinhard HöltgenMD and Harald TillmannsMD. A Randomized Comparison of Transradial Versus Transfemoral Approach for Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty, JACC Journals › JACC: Interventions › Archives (November 2009) Vol. 2 No. 11 (page 1047-1054) DOI:

Louvard Y, Benamer H, Garot P. Comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and angioplasty in octogenarians (the OCTOPLUS study). Am J Cardiol 2004;94;1177–80.

Philippe F, Larrazet F, Meziane T, Dibie A. Comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with primary angioplasty and abciximab. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 61:67–73. DOI:

Cantor WJ, Kaplan AL, Velianou JL. Effectiveness and safety of abciximab after failed thrombolytic therapy. Am J Cardiol 2001; 87:439–42.

Louvard Y, Lefevre T,Allian A ,Morice MC .coronary angiography through radial or the femoral approach: the CARAFE study. Cathet cardiovasc Intervent 2001; 52:181-7. DOI:<181::AID-CCD1044>3.0.CO;2-G

S. K. Sinha, V. Mishra, N. Afdaali, “Coronary angiography safety between transradial and transfemoral access,” Cardiology Research and Practice, vol. 2016, Article ID 4013843, 7 pages, 2016. Hindawi Cardiology Research and Practice Volume 2018, Article ID 3045963, 1 page DOI:

Kassam S, Cantor WJ, Patel D, Gilchrist IC, Winegard LD, Rea ME, et al. Radial V/S Femoral access for rescue percutaneous coronary intervention with adjuvant glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition. Can J Cardiol. 2004; 20:1439–42.

Kiemeneij F, Laarman GJ, Odekerken D, Slagboom T, van der Wieken R. A randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study. J Am Coll Cardiol.1997; 29:1269–75. DOI:

Osama Tayeh , Federica Ettori ; Coronary angiography safety between radial and femoral access; the egeptyan heart jornal(2014) 66,149-154 DOI:

Y. Louvard, H. Benamer, P. Garot, “Comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and angioplasty In Octogenarians (theOCTOPLUS study),” The American Journal of Cardiology, vol.94, no. 9, pp. 1177–1180,2004. DOI:

G. Plourde, S. B. Pancholy, J. Nolan, “Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” The Lancet, vol.386, no. 10009, pp. 2192–2203, 2015. DOI:

CM Shaheen Kabir1, M. Maksumul Haq2, Saidur Rahman Khan3, Mashhud Zia Chowdhury4, Mohammad Liaquat Ali5, Md. Rezaul Karim6. Safety of Radial vs. Femoral Artery Access in Coronary Angiography; (Bangladesh Heart Journal 2015; 30(2) : 68-73) DOI:

Cantor WJ, Kaplan AL, Velianou JL, et al. Effectiveness and safety of abciximab after failed thrombolytic therapy. Am J Cardiol 2001; 87:439–42. DOI:

Suryapranata H, van’t Hof AM, Hoorntje JC, de Boer MJ, Zijlstra F. Randomized comparison of coronary stenting with balloon angioplasty in selected patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1998; 97:2502–5. DOI:

Amoroso G, Sarti M, Bellucci R. Clinical and procedural predictors of nurse workload during and after invasive coronary procedures: the potential benefit of a systematic radial access. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2005; 4:234–41. DOI:

Jang JS, Jin HY, Seo JS, The transradial versus the transfemoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EAPCI. 2012, 8:501–510. DOI:

Hibbert B, Simard T, Wilson KR, Transradial versus transfemoral artery approach for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in the extremely obese. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012, 5:819–826. DOI:

Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): A randomized, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. London; 2011. 377:1409–1420. DOI:



How to Cite


Similar Articles

1-10 of 57

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.