Introduction
The first use of the RA as conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting
is dated back in 1973 when Carpentier and colleagues published a case
series of 30 patients1; the authors explored the RA
potential due to the larger diameter, ease of dissection and generally
more suitability for suturing. Ten months after the operation all the
graft were opened, however they warned against early optimism because it
needed to be ‘ascertained whether the arterial conduits were threatened
by the same modifications as those observed in the venous
grafts’2. Later on, in fact, the authors advised RA
use to be discontinued because of a 30% incidence of graft occlusion.
Shortly after, other Authors also reported high rates of spasm and early
occlusion and eventually the RA was abandoned for some
times3.
Out of serendipity, almost 20 years later, a patient in whom
postoperative angiography showed total occlusion was restudied and
surprisingly the RA was fully patent, most importantly, with no
evidences of atherosclerotic disease. Three other patients were
re-studied, with similar angiographic results. These findings attracted
newer attention of the potential use of RA as alternative graft for
coronary surgery. Hence, Carpentier restarted the RA use, this time
using CB, during and after the operation2 and in 1992,
published a paper titled: ‘Revival of the radial artery for coronary
artery bypass grafting’, where significant improved patency was
reported4.
It was suggested that the ‘key’ for preserving RA patency perhaps was
the use of CB since the very early start of the harvesting and the
prescription as chronic antispastic agents. The concern of spasm with
the RA use is indeed related to its unique histologic structures that
significantly differ from all the other conduits routinely used for
CABG.