Sudhakar R Satti1, Ansar Z Vance2, Thinesh Sivapatham3. 1. Department of Neurointerventional Surgery, Christiana Care Health System, USA Ssatti@christianacare.org. 2. Department of Interventional Radiology (AZV), Christiana Care Health System, USA. 3. Department of Neurointerventional Surgery, Christiana Care Health System, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advantages of radial access over brachial/axillary or femoral access have been well described for several decades and include decreased cost, patient preference, and decreased major access site complications. Despite these advantages, radial access is rarely employed or even considered for neurointerventional procedures. This attitude should be reconsidered given several recent large, randomized, controlled trials from the cardiovascular literature proving that radial access is associated with statistically lower costs, decreased incidence of myocardial infarctions, strokes, and even decreased mortality. Radial access is now considered the standard of care for percutaneous coronary interventions in most US centers. Although radial access has been described for neurovascular procedures in the past, overall experience is limited. The two major challenges are the unique anatomy required to access the cerebral vasculature given very acute angles between the arm and craniocervical vessels and limitations in available technology. METHODS: We present a simplified approach to radial access for cerebrovascular procedures and provide a concise step-by-step approach for patient selection, ultrasound-guided single-wall access, recommended catheters/wires, and review of patent hemostasis. Additionally, we present a complex cerebrovascular intervention in which standard femoral access was unsuccessful, while radial access was quickly achieved to highlight the importance of familiarity with the radial approach for all neurointerventionalists. RESULTS: We have found that the learning curve is not too steep and that the radial access approach can be adopted smoothly for a large percentage of diagnostic and interventional neuroradiologic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Radial access should be considered in all patients undergoing a cerebrovascular procedure.
BACKGROUND: Advantages of radial access over brachial/axillary or femoral access have been well described for several decades and include decreased cost, patient preference, and decreased major access site complications. Despite these advantages, radial access is rarely employed or even considered for neurointerventional procedures. This attitude should be reconsidered given several recent large, randomized, controlled trials from the cardiovascular literature proving that radial access is associated with statistically lower costs, decreased incidence of myocardial infarctions, strokes, and even decreased mortality. Radial access is now considered the standard of care for percutaneous coronary interventions in most US centers. Although radial access has been described for neurovascular procedures in the past, overall experience is limited. The two major challenges are the unique anatomy required to access the cerebral vasculature given very acute angles between the arm and craniocervical vessels and limitations in available technology. METHODS: We present a simplified approach to radial access for cerebrovascular procedures and provide a concise step-by-step approach for patient selection, ultrasound-guided single-wall access, recommended catheters/wires, and review of patent hemostasis. Additionally, we present a complex cerebrovascular intervention in which standard femoral access was unsuccessful, while radial access was quickly achieved to highlight the importance of familiarity with the radial approach for all neurointerventionalists. RESULTS: We have found that the learning curve is not too steep and that the radial access approach can be adopted smoothly for a large percentage of diagnostic and interventional neuroradiologic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Radial access should be considered in all patients undergoing a cerebrovascular procedure.
Authors: N Yokoyama; S Takeshita; M Ochiai; Y Koyama; S Hoshino; T Isshiki; T Sato Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ivo Bernat; Olivier F Bertrand; Richard Rokyta; Martin Kacer; Jan Pesek; Jiri Koza; Michal Smid; Hana Bruhova; Gabriela Sterbakova; Lucie Stepankova; Olivier Costerousse Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Sanjit S Jolly; Salim Yusuf; John Cairns; Kari Niemelä; Denis Xavier; Petr Widimsky; Andrzej Budaj; Matti Niemelä; Vicent Valentin; Basil S Lewis; Alvaro Avezum; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Sunil V Rao; Peggy Gao; Rizwan Afzal; Campbell D Joyner; Susan Chrolavicius; Shamir R Mehta Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elad I Levy; Alan S Boulos; Richard D Fessler; Bernard R Bendok; Andrew J Ringer; Stanley H Kim; Adnan I Qureshi; Lee R Guterman; L Nelson Hopkins Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.654