BACKGROUND: Successful mechanical embolectomy for acute embolic arterial occlusion in the posterior cerebral circulation can potentially result in less neurologic disability and mortality. The transradial approach can potentially offer more direct navigation into the posterior circulation than the transfemoral approach and can result in faster recanalization time. OBJECTIVE: To compare procedural metrics and the technical and clinical outcomes of transradial versus transfemoral access for mechanical embolectomy in the posterior cerebral circulation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained neurointerventional database from a large volume neurointerventional service in a tertiary academic center. Patients presenting with acute disabling symptoms due to embolic occlusion of a large intracranial artery in the posterior that underwent to endovascular treatment in our institution from January 2017 to January 2019 were included in the present study. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and January 2019 a total of 10 subjects underwent a mechanical embolectomy for acute embolic occlusion on the posterior circulation via transradial access; and between January 2017 and January 2018 a total of 10 subjects underwent a mechanical embolectomy for acute embolic occlusion on the posterior circulation via transfemoral access. Subjects in the transradial access group had a shorter skin puncture to recanalization time compared to the transfemoral group (29.2 ± 17.6 in the transradial group vs. 63.9 ± 56.7 in the transfemoral group respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study comparing transradial versus transfemoral access for mechanical embolectomy in patients with acute embolic occlusion in the posterior cerebral circulation. Transradial access resulted in a safe, effective, and faster endovascular route for recanalization in the acute embolic occlusion of the posterior circulation.
BACKGROUND: Successful mechanical embolectomy for acute embolic arterial occlusion in the posterior cerebral circulation can potentially result in less neurologic disability and mortality. The transradial approach can potentially offer more direct navigation into the posterior circulation than the transfemoral approach and can result in faster recanalization time. OBJECTIVE: To compare procedural metrics and the technical and clinical outcomes of transradial versus transfemoral access for mechanical embolectomy in the posterior cerebral circulation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained neurointerventional database from a large volume neurointerventional service in a tertiary academic center. Patients presenting with acute disabling symptoms due to embolic occlusion of a large intracranial artery in the posterior that underwent to endovascular treatment in our institution from January 2017 to January 2019 were included in the present study. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and January 2019 a total of 10 subjects underwent a mechanical embolectomy for acute embolic occlusion on the posterior circulation via transradial access; and between January 2017 and January 2018 a total of 10 subjects underwent a mechanical embolectomy for acute embolic occlusion on the posterior circulation via transfemoral access. Subjects in the transradial access group had a shorter skin puncture to recanalization time compared to the transfemoral group (29.2 ± 17.6 in the transradial group vs. 63.9 ± 56.7 in the transfemoral group respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study comparing transradial versus transfemoral access for mechanical embolectomy in patients with acute embolic occlusion in the posterior cerebral circulation. Transradial access resulted in a safe, effective, and faster endovascular route for recanalization in the acute embolic occlusion of the posterior circulation.
Authors: Brian M Snelling; Samir Sur; Sumedh S Shah; Priyank Khandelwal; Justin Caplan; Rianna Haniff; Robert M Starke; Dileep R Yavagal; Eric C Peterson Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Brian M Snelling; Samir Sur; Sumedh S Shah; Justin Caplan; Priyank Khandelwal; Dileep R Yavagal; Robert M Starke; Eric C Peterson Journal: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Diogo C Haussen; Raul G Nogueira; Keith G DeSousa; Ryan N Pafford; Nazli Janjua; Kevin N Ramdas; Eric C Peterson; Mohamed Samy Elhammady; Dileep R Yavagal Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Stephanie H Chen; Brian M Snelling; Samir Sur; Sumedh Subodh Shah; David J McCarthy; Evan Luther; Dileep R Yavagal; Eric C Peterson; Robert M Starke Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Wouter J Schonewille; Christine A C Wijman; Patrik Michel; Christina M Rueckert; Christian Weimar; Heinrich P Mattle; Stefan T Engelter; David Tanne; Keith W Muir; Carlos A Molina; Vincent Thijs; Heinrich Audebert; Thomas Pfefferkorn; Kristina Szabo; Perttu J Lindsberg; Gabriel de Freitas; L Jaap Kappelle; Ale Algra Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2009-07-03 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: J A Knox; M D Alexander; D B McCoy; D C Murph; P J Hinckley; J C Ch'ang; C F Dowd; V V Halbach; R T Higashida; M R Amans; S W Hetts; D L Cooke Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.825