Transradial versus transfemoral artery approach for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in the extremely obese

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transradial versus transfemoral access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m(2).

Background: Coronary angiography is most commonly performed via femoral artery access; however, the optimal approach in extremely obese (EO) patients remains unclear.

Methods: Between January 2007 and August 2010, a cohort of consecutive EO patients who underwent coronary angiography was identified in our center's registry of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Of 21,103 procedures, 564 (2.7%) were performed in unique EO patients: 203 (36%) via the transradial approach; and 361 (64%) via the transfemoral approach.

Results: The primary outcome, a combined endpoint of major bleeding, access site complications, and nonaccess site complications, occurred in 7.5% of the transfemoral group and 2.0% of the transradial group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10 to 0.88, p = 0.029), an endpoint driven by reductions in major bleeding (3.3% vs. 0.0%, OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0 to 0.71, p = 0.015), as well as access site injuries (4.7% vs. 0.0%, OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0 to 0.48, p = 0.002). There were no differences in nonaccess site complications (1.7% vs. 2.0%, OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.41 to 5.55), but transradial access procedures were associated with an increase in procedure time and patient radiation dose (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Transfemoral access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with more bleeding and access site complications when compared with a transradial approach. Important reductions in procedural associated morbidity may be possible with a transradial approach in EO patients.