Background: Percutaneous coronary interventions has been performed through traditionally through transfemoral route.In the current scenario, transradial are evolving in the routing clinical practice. Aim: To compare the compared radial versus femoral routes for procedure time, radiation parameters, Fluoroscopy time, contrast amount required and access site complications.

Methods: This was a hospital based single center randomized comparative interventional study conducted on 230 patients who underwent PCI. Out of 230 patients, radial access (n=48) and femoral access (n=182). The route of intervention were compared for procedure time, radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, amount of contrast used and complications.

Results: The procedure time in femoral group was higher as compared to radical group ( 76.48 ±43.80 vs 44.33 ±37.91mins; p<0.001). The dose of radiation was significantly higher in femoral group as compared to the radial group (2062.99±1948.03 vs 917.00±664.78 mGY; p<0.001). Further, the amount of contrast used was significantly higher is significantly higher in femoral group as compared to the radial group ( 205.93 ±83.47 vs 157.31± 67.31; p<0.001) and was statistically significant. The overall access site complications were higher in femoral than radial group.

Conclusion: The present study concludes that radial approach was found to be safer alternative to femoral approach for coronary interventions with lesser radiation exposure, lesser vascular complications and reduced risk of contract induced nephropathy due to lesser contrast usage.