No difference in 30-day outcome and quality of life in transradial versus transfemoral access – Results from the German Austrian ABSORB registry (GABI-R)

Abstract Background Radial (RA) instead of femoral access (FA) for coronary interventions has become a European Society of Cardiology Class-IA guideline recommendation. But when the decision on the access site is left to the discretion of the operator, differences in adverse event rates mitigate. Methods We compared the 30-day outcome for RA and FA in all patients recruited for the observational German Austrian ABSORB Registry (GABI-R) in regard to all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), TIMI major bleedings (TMB) and quality of life (QoL). All patients were treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold. Access site was left to the discretion of the operator. Results In total, 3137 patients included by 92 centers received percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for acute MI in 51.5% and non-acute settings in 48.5%. RA was performed in 47.8% and had a higher median radiation exposure (3896 vs. 3082 cGycm2, p  Conclusions In this contemporary GABI-R cohort, in which access site was left to the discretion of the operator, both access routes were safe and equal concerning QoL ( ClinicalTrials.gov ; NCT02066623 ).