Brian M Snelling1,2, Samir Sur2, Sumedh S Shah2, Justin Caplan3, Priyank Khandelwal2, Dileep R Yavagal2,4, Robert M Starke2,5, Eric C Peterson2. 1. Marcus Neuroscience Institute, Boca Raton Regional Hospital, Boca Raton, Florida. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite several studies analyzing the safety of transradial access (TRA) for neurointervention compared to transfemoral approach (TFA), neurointerventionalists are apprehensive about implementing TRA. From our positive institutional experience, we now utilize TRA first line for a majority of our cases. Here, we present our single-institution experience. OBJECTIVE: To determine safety and feasibility of TRA for neurointervention. METHODS: Through retrospective review of patients receiving TRA for anterior and posterior circulation cerebrovascular interventions at our institution between December 2015 and January 2018, we present our experience regarding this transition, while focusing on technique, complications, feasibility, indications, and limitations. RESULTS: One hundred five procedures were performed on 92 patients (anterior circulation: 77%; posterior circulation: 23%). Radial artery access was achieved in all patients. Twenty-nine cases constituted mechanical thrombectomy, 33 cases represented intracranial aneurysms treatments, and 33 cases included interventions like angioplasty, balloon test occlusion, chemotherapy delivery, and thrombolysis. TRA was used as second-line access to TFA in 5 instances due to aortic arch anomalies and atherosclerotic disease. Minor access-site complications were seen in 2.85% of patients. Ten procedures (9.0%) could not be completed with TRA, with crossover to TFA occurring in 7 cases. CONCLUSION: TRA is safe and feasible for the majority of neurointerventional procedures and provides decreased risk of major access-site complications compared to TFA. Perceived limitations of TRA can likely be eliminated via operator experience and engineering ingenuity; thus, there is a role for TRA for neurointervention, especially in patients with increased risk of access-site complications from TFA.
BACKGROUND: Despite several studies analyzing the safety of transradial access (TRA) for neurointervention compared to transfemoral approach (TFA), neurointerventionalists are apprehensive about implementing TRA. From our positive institutional experience, we now utilize TRA first line for a majority of our cases. Here, we present our single-institution experience. OBJECTIVE: To determine safety and feasibility of TRA for neurointervention. METHODS: Through retrospective review of patients receiving TRA for anterior and posterior circulation cerebrovascular interventions at our institution between December 2015 and January 2018, we present our experience regarding this transition, while focusing on technique, complications, feasibility, indications, and limitations. RESULTS: One hundred five procedures were performed on 92 patients (anterior circulation: 77%; posterior circulation: 23%). Radial artery access was achieved in all patients. Twenty-nine cases constituted mechanical thrombectomy, 33 cases represented intracranial aneurysms treatments, and 33 cases included interventions like angioplasty, balloon test occlusion, chemotherapy delivery, and thrombolysis. TRA was used as second-line access to TFA in 5 instances due to aortic arch anomalies and atherosclerotic disease. Minor access-site complications were seen in 2.85% of patients. Ten procedures (9.0%) could not be completed with TRA, with crossover to TFA occurring in 7 cases. CONCLUSION: TRA is safe and feasible for the majority of neurointerventional procedures and provides decreased risk of major access-site complications compared to TFA. Perceived limitations of TRA can likely be eliminated via operator experience and engineering ingenuity; thus, there is a role for TRA for neurointervention, especially in patients with increased risk of access-site complications from TFA.
Authors: S Z Shapiro; K A Sabacinski; K Mantripragada; S S Shah; A A Stein; N B Echeverry; G A MacKinnon; B M Snelling Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mario Martínez-Galdámez; Miguel Schüller; Jorge Galvan; Mercedes de Lera; Vladimir Kalousek; Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez; Juan F Arenillas Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: A L Kühn; S R Satti; T Eden; K de Macedo Rodrigues; J Singh; F Massari; M J Gounis; A S Puri Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Rimal H Dossani; Muhammad Waqas; Michael K Tso; Justin M Cappuzzo; Daniel Popoola; Kenneth V Snyder; Elad I Levy; Adnan H Siddiqui; Jason M Davies Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-12-26 Impact factor: 1.764
Authors: Anna Luisa Kühn; Jasmeet Singh; Viraj M Moholkar; Sudhakar R Satti; Katyucia de Macedo Rodrigues; Francesco Massari; Matthew J Gounis; Archie McGowan; Ajit S Puri Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-13 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Muhammad Waqas; Kunal Vakharia; Rimal H Dossani; Gary B Rajah; Michael K Tso; Andrew D Gong; Kyungduk Rho; Hamid H Rai; Kenneth V Snyder; Elad I Levy; Adnan H Siddiqui; Jason M Davies Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-07-05 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Timothy John Phillips; Matthew Thomas Crockett; Gregory D Selkirk; Ruchi Kabra; Albert Ho Yuen Chiu; Tejinder Singh; Constantine Phatouros; William McAuliffe Journal: Stroke Vasc Neurol Date: 2020-11-16