['The transradial approach for coronary procedures is associated with a low complication rate, but specific training is considered mandatory.', 'Procedural characteristics (contrast dye: CD; fluoroscopy time: FT, patient radiation dose: RD) and local complication rates were prospectively assessed in 784 consecutive patients who underwent transradial coronary procedures. The study was divided into an implementation (2008-IP) and an evaluation period (2009-EP). Transradial (N = 624) and transfemoral (N = 842) procedural characteristics were compared in the EP.', 'The amount of CD (mL) of transradial coronary angiography was similar between IP (75 [IQR 60-100]) and EP (70 [55-100]; P = 0.630). In contrast, FT (min) of transradial coronary angiography could be reduced from IP (4.4 [3.2-6.8]) to EP (4.1 [2.7-6.5]; P = 0.036), whereas RD (μGy * qcm) was similar (IP: 1623 [1042-3026]); EP (1576 [944-2530]; P = 0.149). Safety data showed a low complication rate: 0.2% access failure, 0.1% dissection, 0.7% vessel closure. Transfemoral procedures were followed by significantly more procedure- related transfusions (1.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.003). The comparison between transfemoral and transradial procedures demonstrated prolonged FT for transradial procedures (transfemoral 2.9 [1.7-5.5]; transradial 4.1 [2.7-6.5]; P = 0.002), whereas CD was similar (transfemoral 70 [55-100]; transradial 70 [55-100]; P = 0.248). The prolonged FT was restricted to coronary angiography but did not differ for PCI (transfemoral 9.7 [5.8-18.1]; transradial 8.9 [5.3-16.5]; P = 0.433).'] Is implementation of the transradial approach for coronary procedures associated with an elevated complication rate and elevated radiation patient exposure?