Compared with femoral access, radial access typically offers which advantage?

• A. Radial access reduces access-site bleeding and vascular complications and improves patient comfort.
• B. Radial access increases procedure time and requires more contrast.
• C. Radial access is contraindicated in elderly patients.
• D. Radial access has higher risk of stroke.

Answer: (A)

Radial access is favored because the artery at the wrist is superficial and easy to compress, which makes achieving hemostasis straightforward. That simplicity translates into a lower risk of access-site bleeding and vascular complications such as hematomas or pseudoaneurysms compared with the femoral approach. With less bleeding risk, patients can be managed more comfortably, often ambulating sooner and leaving the hospital earlier.

In practice, this means the radial route reduces the bleeding-related downsides that can accompany femoral access, especially in patients who are anticoagulated or have vascular disease. While every approach has its own nuances, the safety and comfort advantages of radial access are the most consistent and clinically meaningful, making it the typical improvement over femoral access.

The other statements don’t fit as well: procedure time and contrast use are not inherently increased with radial access in experienced hands; radial access is not contraindicated in elderly patients; and it does not carry a higher risk of stroke compared with femoral access.