lthough the traditional transfemoral arterial approach (TFA) for catheter-based coronary or carotid intervention is still popular, 1-4 it has disadvantages, including the need for bed rest, puncture site compression after the procedure, and vascular complications of hematoma and arteriovenous fistula, as well as difficult access because of the tortuous aorta or if there is occlusion of the femoral-iliac-aortic route. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The transradial arterial approach (TRA), which is a fairly simple route of access 13,14 for catheter-based coronary intervention, has been developed for more than 15 years and since the safety and efficacy of this method was fully discussed and validated, 13,15 it has become a widely used approach, especially in Asia, for elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). [15][16][17][18][19] Recent studies has further indicated that TRA is safe and efficacious for elective coronary angiographic studies of outpatients, 20 elective left main coronary intervention, 21 cerebral angiographic studies or vertebral or carotid stenting. 22,23 So currently, the TFA and TRA are the most popular vascular access routes for various types of PCI worldwide, but while the safety and efficacy of the TFA approach for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing primary PCI have been extensively discussed, 3,24,25 relevant issues for using the TRA for primary PCI have not been fully investigated 26 in an era when TRA for primary PCI is already daily practice in some medical centers. 27,28 Therefore, the aim of this study was to elucidate whether initial selection of the TRA was inferior to initial selection of the TFA for selected AMI patients undergoing primary PCI by analyzing the electronic database at Kaohsiung Chang Gang Memorial Hospital. Particular attention was paid to the key issue of the rate of procedure-related major vascular bleeding and vascular complications.