Key result
Transradial access for cardiac catheterization and PCI offers advantages like short recovery time and fewer bleeding complications, but was used in only about 1.32% of PCI patients in the US.
This review highlights the clinical benefits of transradial access for PCI, such as reduced bleeding and shorter recovery, while exploring the reasons for its historically low adoption in the United States.
Despite benefits, transradial access remains underused in US PCI; leaves open effective strategies to overcome adoption barriers.
Campeau in 1989 and subsequently Kiemeneij and Laarman in 1993 successfully attempted diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), respectively, using the radial artery. Since then, the technique has evolved significantly with improvement in catheters and operators gaining experience in transradial (TR) procedures. Short recovery time, less bleeding complications, and enhanced patient satisfaction made the TR approach a preferred route to perform cardiac catheterization and PCIs in an increasing number of countries. As operators become more comfortable with this approach, they are using it to perform increasingly complex procedures such as rotational atherectomy and opening chronic total occlusions. Despite its increasing acceptance due to the advantages it offers, TR access was used only in about 1.32% of patients who underwent PCI in the US in a report by Rao et al. In this review, we summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the TR approach trying to identify the possible causes of it not being adopted in US.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elgharib et al. (2009) conducted a review in Cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. Transradial access was evaluated. Transradial access for cardiac catheterization and PCI offers advantages like short recovery time and fewer bleeding complications, but was used in only about 1.32% of PCI patients in the US.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: