Download PDF
Int J Angiol 2014; 23(02): 077-084
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1372243
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Transradial Approach to Cardiovascular Interventions: An Update

Shilpa Sachdeva
1   University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky
,
Sibu Saha
2   Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
12 May 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Since the first cardiac catheterization in 1929, the procedure has continually evolved with advances in understanding, capabilities, and ease of operation. Though historically performed by cut down of the brachial artery, cardiologists soon learned that transfemoral access was both easier to perform and more efficacious with regard to patient outcome. In the last 20 years, the transradial approach has been adopted, and is being utilized with increasing frequency.

Methods We conducted a survey of literature published concerning safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and global uptake of transradial catheterization with specific attention to how transradial interventions compare with transfemoral interventions.

Results This review of literature indicates that when performed by an experienced interventionalist, radial catheterization is as effective as femoral catheterization and has additional benefits of shorter length of hospital stay and reduced patient costs. Transradial access is superior to transfemoral access in some, but not all, clinical scenarios; in addition, it is an effective alternative for catheterization in patients contraindicated for transfemoral procedures. Adoption of radial access in the United States is at a faster rate than previously expected, though rate of use varies drastically worldwide.

Conclusion The transradial approach is an excellent option for carrying out cardiovascular interventions, and will be adopted by more cardiologists in the upcoming years.

Keywords

radial artery - arterial access - vascular complications - cost-benefit analysis - worldwide adoption - feasibility studies

Note

All authors have read and approved the submission of the article. The article has not been published and is not under consideration for publication in whole or part except as an abstract.


 

  • References

  • 1 Mueller RL, Sanborn TA. The history of interventional cardiology: cardiac catheterization, angioplasty, and related interventions. Am Heart J 1995; 129 (1) 146-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Elgharib NZ, Shah UH, Coppola JT. Transradial cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention: a review. Coron Artery Dis 2009; 20 (8) 487-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kern ML, Kern MJ. The Cardiac Catheterization Handbook. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Bush CA, VanFossen DB, Kolibash Jr AJ , et al. Cardiac catheterization and coronary angiography using 5 French preformed (Judkins) catheters from the percutaneous right brachial approach: a comparative analysis with the femoral approach. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1993; 29 (4) 267-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Brueck M, Bandorski D, Kramer W, Wieczorek M, Höltgen R, Tillmanns H. A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 2 (11) 1047-1054
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cantor WJ, Puley G, Natarajan MK , et al. Radial versus femoral access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention with adjunct glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in acute myocardial infarction—the RADIAL-AMI pilot randomized trial. Am Heart J 2005; 150 (3) 543-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Roussanov O, Wilson SJ, Henley K , et al. Cost-effectiveness of the radial versus femoral artery approach to diagnostic cardiac catheterization. J Invasive Cardiol 2007; 19 (8) 349-353
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pancholy S, Coppola J, Patel T, Roke-Thomas M. Prevention of radial artery occlusion-patent hemostasis evaluation trial (PROPHET study): a randomized comparison of traditional versus patency documented hemostasis after transradial catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 72 (3) 335-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rao SV. Observations from a transradial registry: our remedies oft in ourselves do lie. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5 (1) 44-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Uhlemann M, Möbius-Winkler S, Mende M , et al. The Leipzig prospective vascular ultrasound registry in radial artery catheterization: impact of sheath size on vascular complications. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5 (1) 36-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Nathan S, Rao SV. Radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention: implications for vascular complications and bleeding. Curr Cardiol Rep 2012; 14 (4) 502-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Joyal D, Bertrand OF, Rinfret S, Shimony A, Eisenberg MJ. Meta-analysis of ten trials on the effectiveness of the radial versus the femoral approach in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2012; 109 (6) 813-818
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Vorobcsuk A, Kónyi A, Aradi D , et al. Transradial versus transfemoral percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction Systematic overview and meta-analysis. Am Heart J 2009; 158 (5) 814-821
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J , et al; RIVAL trial group. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 2011; 377 (9775) 1409-1420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rao SV, Krucoff MW. Radial first: paradox+proficiency=opportunity. J Am Heart Assoc 2013; 2 (3) e000281
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kuipers G, Delewi R, Velders XL , et al. Radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary angiograms performed by the radial compared with the femoral route. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5 (7) 752-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mercuri M, Mehta S, Xie C, Valettas N, Velianou JL, Natarajan MK. Radial artery access as a predictor of increased radiation exposure during a diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4 (3) 347-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lo TS, Ratib K, Chong AY, Bhatia G, Gunning M, Nolan J. Impact of access site selection and operator expertise on radiation exposure; a controlled prospective study. Am Heart J 2012; 164 (4) 455-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chodór P, Kurek T, Kowalczuk A , et al. Radial vs femoral approach with StarClose clip placement for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. RADIAMI II: a prospective, randomised, single centre trial. Kardiol Pol 2011; 69 (8) 763-771
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rao SV, Bernat I, Bertrand OF. Clinical update: Remaining challenges and opportunities for improvement in percutaneous transradial coronary procedures. Eur Heart J 2012; 33 (20) 2521-2526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cooper CJ, El-Shiekh RA, Cohen DJ , et al. Effect of transradial access on quality of life and cost of cardiac catheterization: A randomized comparison. Am Heart J 1999; 138 (3 Pt 1) 430-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mitchell MD, Hong JA, Lee BY, Umscheid CA, Bartsch SM, Don CW. Systematic review and cost-benefit analysis of radial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012; 5 (4) 454-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hamon M, Lipiecki J, Carrié D , et al. Silent cerebral infarcts after cardiac catheterization: a randomized comparison of radial and femoral approaches. Am Heart J 2012; 164 (4) 449-454 , e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hoffman SJ, Routledge HC, Lennon RJ , et al. Procedural factors associated with percutaneous coronary intervention-related ischemic stroke. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5 (2) 200-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Masuda N, Matsukage T, Ogata N, Morino Y, Tanabe T, Ikari Y. Analysis of peripheral arterial bends that interfere with coronary catheterization. J Invasive Cardiol 2010; 22 (5) 197-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Takeshita S, Shiono T, Takagi A, Ito T, Saito S. Percutaneous coronary intervention using a novel 4-French coronary accessor. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 72 (2) 222-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 LaQuaglia MP, Upton J, May Jr JW. Microvascular reconstruction of major arteries in neonates and small children. J Pediatr Surg 1991; 26 (9) 1136-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Russell JA, Joel M, Hudson RJ, Mangano DT, Schlobohm RM. Prospective evaluation of radial and femoral artery catheterization sites in critically ill adults. Crit Care Med 1983; 11 (12) 936-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Sciahbasi A, Fischetti D, Picciolo A , et al. Transradial access compared with femoral puncture closure devices in percutaneous coronary procedures. Int J Cardiol 2009; 137 (3) 199-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Matsumoto Y, Hokama M, Nagashima H , et al. Transradial approach for selective cerebral angiography: technical note. Neurol Res 2000; 22 (6) 605-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Fessler RD, Wakhloo AK, Lanzino G, Guterman LR, Hopkins LN. Transradial approach for vertebral artery stenting: technical case report. Neurosurgery 2000; 46 (6) 1524-1527 , discussion 1527–1528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bertrand OF, Bagur R, Costerousse O, Rodés-Cabau J. Transradial vs femoral percutaneous coronary intervention for left main disease in octogenarians. Indian Heart J 2010; 62 (3) 234-237
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Koutouzis M, Matejka G, Olivecrona G, Grip L, Albertsson P. Radial vs. femoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2010; 11 (2) 79-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Watt J, Oldroyd KG. Radial versus femoral approach for high-speed rotational atherectomy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 74 (4) 550-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hildick-Smith DJ, Walsh JT, Lowe MD, Shapiro LM, Petch MC. Transradial coronary angiography in patients with contraindications to the femoral approach: an analysis of 500 cases. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 61 (1) 60-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Caputo RP, Tremmel JA, Rao S , et al. Transradial arterial access for coronary and peripheral procedures: executive summary by the Transradial Committee of the SCAI. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 78 (6) 823-839
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Bell BP, Iqtidar AF, Pyne CT. Impella assisted transradial coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes and cardiogenic shock: case series. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 78 (6) 880-885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Han H, Zhou Y, Ma H , et al. Safety and feasibility of transradial approach for coronary bypass graft angiography and intervention. Angiology 2012; 63 (2) 103-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Moyer CD, Gilchrist IC. Transradial bilateral cardiac catheterization and endomyocardial bioposy: a feasibility study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005; 64 (2) 134-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Kassam S, Cantor WJ, Patel D , et al. Radial versus femoral access for rescue percutaneous coronary intervention with adjuvant glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use. Can J Cardiol 2004; 20 (14) 1439-1442
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Jibran R, Khan JA, Hoye A. Gender disparity in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes - does it still exist in contemporary practice?. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2010; 39 (3) 173-178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Eisen LA, Minami T, Berger JS, Sekiguchi H, Mayo PH, Narasimhan M. Gender disparity in failure rate for arterial catheter attempts. J Intensive Care Med 2007; 22 (3) 166-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Cox N, Resnic FS, Popma JJ, Simon DI, Eisenhauer AC, Rogers C. Comparison of the risk of vascular complications associated with femoral and radial access coronary catheterization procedures in obese versus nonobese patients. Am J Cardiol 2004; 94 (9) 1174-1177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 McNulty PH, Ettinger SM, Field JM , et al. Cardiac catheterization in morbidly obese patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002; 56 (2) 174-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Rao SV, Ou FS, Wang TY , et al. Trends in the prevalence and outcomes of radial and femoral approaches to percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 1 (4) 379-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Johnman C, Pell JP, Mackay DF , et al. Clinical outcomes following radial versus femoral artery access in primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention in Scotland: retrospective cohort study of 4534 patients. Heart 2012; 98 (7) 552-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Andrade PB, Tebet MA, Andrade MV, Labrunie A, Mattos LA. Radial approach in percutaneous coronary interventions: current status in Brazil. Arq Bras Cardiol 2011; 96 (4) 312-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Dahm JB, van Buuren F. Transradial percutaneous coronary interventions: indications, success rates & clinical outcome. Indian Heart J 2010; 62 (3) 218-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Yiğit F, Sezgin AT, Erol T , et al. An experience on radial versus femoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography in Turkey. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg 2006; 6 (3) 229-234
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Sanmartin M, Cuevas D, Moxica J , et al. Transradial cardiac catheterization in patients with coronary bypass grafts: feasibility analysis and comparison with transfemoral approach. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006; 67 (4) 580-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Hou L, Wei YD, Li WM, Xu YW. Comparative study on transradial versus transfemoral approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in Chinese patients with acute myocardial infarction. Saudi Med J 2010; 31 (2) 158-162
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Xia K, Ding RJ, Hu DY, Yang XC, Wang LF. The efficacy and safety of transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi 2011; 50 (6) 478-481
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Bertrand OF, Rao SV, Pancholy S , et al. Transradial approach for coronary angiography and interventions: results of the first international transradial practice survey. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3 (10) 1022-1031
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Gilchrist IC. Transradial catheterization's grass roots epidemic. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3 (10) 1032-1034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Bernat I, Bertrand OF, Rokyta R , et al. Efficacy and safety of transient ulnar artery compression to recanalize acute radial artery occlusion after transradial catheterization. Am J Cardiol 2011; 107 (11) 1698-1701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Rathore S, Stables RH, Pauriah M , et al. Impact of length and hydrophilic coating of the introducer sheath on radial artery spasm during transradial coronary intervention: a randomized study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3 (5) 475-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 He GW, Yang CQ. Comparative study on calcium channel antagonists in the human radial artery: clinical implications. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000; 119 (1) 94-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Pristipino C, Roncella A, Trani C , et al; Prospective Registry of Vascular Access in Interventions in Lazio region (PREVAIL) study group. Identifying factors that predict the choice and success rate of radial artery catheterisation in contemporary real world cardiology practice: a sub-analysis of the PREVAIL study data. EuroIntervention 2010; 6 (2) 240-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar