Transradial Approach for Coronary Intervention: 25 Years for 25 Centimeters

The first series of transradial coronary angiograms was carried out by Lucien Campeau and published in 1989. The devices available at that time made the technique difficult to perform. Four years later, when stenting started being widely used with a significant rate of local complications induced by Coumadin treatment, F. Kiemeneij proposed the radial approach as a good alternative to the femoral approach to reduce the rate of local complications. Since then, the use of the radial approach has been increasing, though it remains limited. The first reason for this lies in the significant learning period that is all the longer as a low percentage of patients are treated via this approach. This is why we think it is preferable to perform at least 25% of all procedures, and especially coronary angiograms, through this approach before setting up a radial program. Patients with contraindications to the femoral approach (anticoagulation or GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, obesity, aneurysm of the abdominal aorta, or vessel disease of the lower limbs, etc.) should be selected. The second reason is the small diameter of the radial artery that can generate a number of problems when large diameter guiding catheters are used (7Fr or 8Fr). However, the reduction in guiding‐catheter size, and the increasing use of 6Fr catheters should solve this problem. In our center, the femoral approach is usually selected when 7Fr or 8Fr catheters are used. It is to be noted that the radial approach is now widely used in some interventional cardiology centers where the learning period has been completed. With operator experience, puncture failure is extremely rare and the technical failure rate is around 1%, mainly due to the anatomic variations of the radial artery (antebrachial and humeral loops). Apart from the difficulties associated with the learning curve, the radial approach has few limitations. The procedure and x‐ray exposure times are slightly longer for coronary angiography but not for angioplasty. The risk of radial occlusion ranges from 2% to 5%, however, radial occlusion is asymptomatic in patients with a normal Allen's test. Conversely, the radial approach has many advantages. Patient comfort is significantly improved due to the ease of radial compression, ambulation is almost immediate, and the rate of local complications is almost nil. Same day discharge following coronary angiography and angioplasty can be considered. Finally, with the increasing use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, sometimes in combination with thrombolysis in the treatment of myocardial infarction, the radial approach could become the preferred approach in this setting.