Matthew L Hung1, Edward W Lee2, Justin P McWilliams1, Siddharth A Padia1, Pengxu Ding1, Stephen T Kee1. 1. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, UCLA Medical Center, Ronald Reagan Medical Center at UCLA, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 757 Westwood Plaza, Suite 2125, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-743730, USA. 2. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, UCLA Medical Center, Ronald Reagan Medical Center at UCLA, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 757 Westwood Plaza, Suite 2125, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-743730, USA. EdwardLee@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe a single institution's experience with transradial access (TRA) for angiographic interventions, and to compare technical success, complication rate and radiation dose of procedures performed with TRA to those performed with transfemoral access (TFA). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing peripheral interventions via TRA or TFA from 2015 to 2017 was performed. The cohort comprised 33 patients undergoing 44 procedures via TRA and 37 patients undergoing 44 procedures via TFA. Outcome measures were technical success, access-related complications, fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure. Differences at p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between patients who had procedures via TRA versus those who had procedures via TFA, including age, sex and body mass index. Technical success was achieved in 41/44 (93.2%) of procedures performed via TRA, compared to 44/44 (100%) of procedures performed via TFA (p = 0.241). There were three access-related complications (6.8%) when TRA was performed, compared to none when TFA was performed (p = 0.241). Fluoroscopy time was longer in procedures performed with TRA compared to those performed with TFA (27.3 vs 20.4, p = 0.033). Dose area product (DAP) did not differ with access site choice (p = 0.186). CONCLUSIONS: TRA is a safe and feasible alternative to TFA for a range of peripheral interventions. However, TRA must be performed with prudence as it is not without complications and is technically challenging, leading to longer fluoroscopy time. KEY POINTS: • Transradial access (TRA) is feasible in a variety of peripheral interventions, achieving success in 93.2% of cases. • Access-related complications are comparable between transfemoral access (TFA) and TRA (p = 0.241), but prudence must be taken during TRA as it could be technically challenging. • Procedures performed with TRA tend to have longer fluoroscopy time compared to those performed with TFA (p = 0.033), but the DAPs are comparable (p = 0.186).
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe a single institution's experience with transradial access (TRA) for angiographic interventions, and to compare technical success, complication rate and radiation dose of procedures performed with TRA to those performed with transfemoral access (TFA). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing peripheral interventions via TRA or TFA from 2015 to 2017 was performed. The cohort comprised 33 patients undergoing 44 procedures via TRA and 37 patients undergoing 44 procedures via TFA. Outcome measures were technical success, access-related complications, fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure. Differences at p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between patients who had procedures via TRA versus those who had procedures via TFA, including age, sex and body mass index. Technical success was achieved in 41/44 (93.2%) of procedures performed via TRA, compared to 44/44 (100%) of procedures performed via TFA (p = 0.241). There were three access-related complications (6.8%) when TRA was performed, compared to none when TFA was performed (p = 0.241). Fluoroscopy time was longer in procedures performed with TRA compared to those performed with TFA (27.3 vs 20.4, p = 0.033). Dose area product (DAP) did not differ with access site choice (p = 0.186). CONCLUSIONS: TRA is a safe and feasible alternative to TFA for a range of peripheral interventions. However, TRA must be performed with prudence as it is not without complications and is technically challenging, leading to longer fluoroscopy time. KEY POINTS: • Transradial access (TRA) is feasible in a variety of peripheral interventions, achieving success in 93.2% of cases. • Access-related complications are comparable between transfemoral access (TFA) and TRA (p = 0.241), but prudence must be taken during TRA as it could be technically challenging. • Procedures performed with TRA tend to have longer fluoroscopy time compared to those performed with TFA (p = 0.033), but the DAPs are comparable (p = 0.186).
Authors: Connie N Hess; Eric D Peterson; Megan L Neely; David Dai; William B Hillegass; Mitchell W Krucoff; Michael A Kutcher; John C Messenger; Samir Pancholy; Robert N Piana; Sunil V Rao Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Neil J Resnick; Edward Kim; Rahul S Patel; Robert A Lookstein; F Scott Nowakowski; Aaron M Fischman Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Sean R Dariushnia; Anne E Gill; Louis G Martin; Wael E Saad; Kevin M Baskin; Drew M Caplin; Sanjeeva P Kalva; Mark J Hogan; Mehran Midia; Nasir H Siddiqi; T Gregory Walker; Boris Nikolic Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Avnesh S Thakor; Mohammed T Alshammari; David M Liu; John Chung; Stephen G F Ho; Gerald M Legiehn; Lindsay Machan; Aaron M Fischman; Rahul S Patel; Darren Klass Journal: Can Assoc Radiol J Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: Zoltán Ruzsa; Károly Tóth; Zoltán Jambrik; Nándor Kovács; Sándor Nardai; Balázs Nemes; Kálmán Hüttl; Béla Merkely Journal: Interv Med Appl Sci Date: 2014-09-18
Authors: Chuanwu Cao; So-Yeon Kim; Gun Ha Kim; Ji Hoon Shin; In Chul Nam; Meshari Alali; Hee Ho Chu; Heung-Kyu Ko Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 3.240