PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of transradial access for diagnostic angiography and interventional neuroradiology procedures. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a single-center experience based on 225 patients attended between August 2015 and October 2019, in which transradial access was used for diagnostic angiography and endovascular interventions. Ultrasound-guided access was done at the level of the forearm or anatomical or snuffbox (distal transradial access). Conventional forearm transradial access was done in 179 procedures (right, left and bilateral in 169, 5 and 5, respectively), while distal transradial access was done in 46 cases (41 right and 5 left). Primary outcome measures included successful catheterization, need to change access, or technical complications. RESULTS: In the group of 131 diagnostic angiographies, the technique success rate was 100% to target the right vertebral artery, 97% for the right internal carotid, 93.5% for the left internal carotid, 82% for the left vertebral artery, and 100% for both common and external carotid arteries. All patients were discharged within 2-4 h after the procedure. A total of 94 interventional procedures were performed, including aneurysms in 39 cases, stroke in 34, and other procedures (carotid stents, arteriovenous malformations, carotid-cavernous fistula) in the remaining 21. The overall technical success in both diagnostic angiographies and interventional procedures was 97.7%. In four cases of diagnostic angiography and in 1 intervention, it was necessary to switch from transradial access to transfemoral access. Three cases of hematoma related to the access site were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, transradial access is an alternative approach for diagnostic angiography and neuro-interventions.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of transradial access for diagnostic angiography and interventional neuroradiology procedures. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a single-center experience based on 225 patients attended between August 2015 and October 2019, in which transradial access was used for diagnostic angiography and endovascular interventions. Ultrasound-guided access was done at the level of the forearm or anatomical or snuffbox (distal transradial access). Conventional forearm transradial access was done in 179 procedures (right, left and bilateral in 169, 5 and 5, respectively), while distal transradial access was done in 46 cases (41 right and 5 left). Primary outcome measures included successful catheterization, need to change access, or technical complications. RESULTS: In the group of 131 diagnostic angiographies, the technique success rate was 100% to target the right vertebral artery, 97% for the right internal carotid, 93.5% for the left internal carotid, 82% for the left vertebral artery, and 100% for both common and external carotid arteries. All patients were discharged within 2-4 h after the procedure. A total of 94 interventional procedures were performed, including aneurysms in 39 cases, stroke in 34, and other procedures (carotid stents, arteriovenous malformations, carotid-cavernous fistula) in the remaining 21. The overall technical success in both diagnostic angiographies and interventional procedures was 97.7%. In four cases of diagnostic angiography and in 1 intervention, it was necessary to switch from transradial access to transfemoral access. Three cases of hematoma related to the access site were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, transradial access is an alternative approach for diagnostic angiography and neuro-interventions.
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: Franz-Josef Neumann; Miguel Sousa-Uva; Anders Ahlsson; Fernando Alfonso; Adrian P Banning; Umberto Benedetto; Robert A Byrne; Jean-Philippe Collet; Volkmar Falk; Stuart J Head; Peter Jüni; Adnan Kastrati; Akos Koller; Steen D Kristensen; Josef Niebauer; Dimitrios J Richter; Petar M Seferovic; Dirk Sibbing; Giulio G Stefanini; Stephan Windecker; Rashmi Yadav; Michael O Zembala Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Timothy J Kaufmann; John Huston; Jay N Mandrekar; Cathy D Schleck; Kent R Thielen; David F Kallmes Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Giuseppe Ferrante; Sunil V Rao; Peter Jüni; Bruno R Da Costa; Bernhard Reimers; Gianluigi Condorelli; Angelo Anzuini; Sanjit S Jolly; Olivier F Bertrand; Mitchell W Krucoff; Stephan Windecker; Marco Valgimigli Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Brian M Snelling; Samir Sur; Sumedh Subodh Shah; Megan M Marlow; Mauricio G Cohen; Eric C Peterson Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Roger Barranco-Pons; Isabel Rodríguez Caamaño; Anna Nuñez Guillen; Oscar Sabino Chirife; Helena Quesada; Pere Cardona Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Young Erben; James F Meschia; Donald V Heck; Fayaz A Shawl; Minerva Mayorga-Carlin; George Howard; Kenneth Rosenfield; John D Sorkin; Thomas G Brott; Brajesh K Lal Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 2.585
Authors: Muhammad U Manzoor; Ibrahim A Almulhim; Abdullah A Alrashed; Abdulrahman Y Alturki; Fatimah A Alghabban; Sultan M Al-Qahtani Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 1.764
Authors: H Hoffman; M S Jalal; H E Masoud; R B Pons; I Rodriguez Caamaño; P Khandelwal; T Prakash; G C Gould Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Isabel Rodriguez Caamaño; Roger Barranco-Pons; Darren Klass; Marta de Dios Las Cuevas; Oscar Sabino Chirife; Sonia Aixut Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 3.649