From Right to Left Radial Access in Older Patients: Are We Witnessing the Next Procedural Shift?

The steady rise in percutaneous coronary interventions performed in older patients reflects not only demographic trends but also the growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of invasive strategies in this population. Three decades ago, the femoral approach was the undisputed standard. Early reports of transradial access in the early 1990s were met with skepticism, mainly due to concerns about procedural complexity and unfamiliarity with the required technical adjustments. Over time, radial access became the preferred approach. The transition from radial to femoral access offered elderly patients a clear reduction in bleeding and vascular complications. Operators naturally shifted from right femoral to right radial access, remaining on the same side of the patient and often overlooking the more distant left side. As a result, right radial access (RRA) became the default. The choice between RRA and left radial access (LRA) is often driven by habit, operator ergonomics, equipment availability, and catheterization laboratory setup. Emerging evidence suggests this decision warrants closer consideration. In older patients, atherosclerotic and tortuous changes in the subclavian and brachiocephalic arteries are disproportionately more common on the right side. A left radial approach may reduce technical challenges, potentially shortening procedure time and lowering radiation exposure and contrast volume.^,

In this issue of the International Journal of Cardiovascular Sciences, Gonçalves et al. shed light on this important topic. In an elegant and technically well-performed systematic review and meta-analysis, including 1,094 patients from three randomized trials and one observational study, the authors provide compelling evidence to reconsider the choice of radial access in elderly patients. While numerous previous reviews have compared LRA and RRA, this study is unique in its exclusive focus on the elderly population. The analysis included studies involving patients aged ≥70 years undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic coronary procedures, comparing RRA and LRA, and reporting at least one of three outcomes: fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, and procedural difficulty.

[…]