Abstract
Radial access is recommended for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but rotational atherectomy remains frequently performed via femoral access. Analyzing the procedural parameters, success rate and complications of rotational atherectomy, performed via radial in comparison to femoral access. We retrospectively analyzed 427 consecutive patients undergoing rotational atherectomy. Procedural parameters and outcome were determined in 171 patients, scheduled for radial and compared to 256 patients with femoral access use. In the radial access group (74 ± 9 years, 84% male), the LAD was most frequently treated (49%). Sheath size was 7F in 59% and 6F in 41%, burr size was 1.5 mm in 46% and 1.25 mm in 14% of patients. A temporary pacemaker was inserted in 14%. Procedural success rate stood at 97%. Access site complications occurred in 4% of patients, which was significantly less frequent than in in 256 patients treated via femoral access (13% p = 0.003). Compared to radial access, femoral access was associated with the use of larger sheaths (p < 0.001), more frequent treatment of non-LAD vessels (58.2% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.013) and a higher rate of temporary pacemaker use (27%; p = 0.001). No differences could be seen in procedural success (p = 0.83) and burr size (p = 0.51). Femoral access (OR 3.33; 95% CI 1.40-7.93), and female sex (OR3.40 95% CI 1.69-6.63) were independent predictors for access site complications. For coronary rotational atherectomy, radial access has a high success rate with overall use of smaller sheaths, but of equally sized burrs as well as a significant lower rate of access site-related complications than femoral access.