Muhammad Waqas1,2, Kunal Vakharia1,2, Rimal H Dossani1,2, Gary B Rajah1,2, Michael K Tso1,2, Andrew D Gong1,2, Kyungduk Rho3, Hamid H Rai3, Kenneth V Snyder1,2,4,5,6, Elad I Levy1,2,5,6, Adnan H Siddiqui1,2,5,6, Jason M Davies1,2,5,6,7. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, 23564Gates Vascular Institute at Kaleida Health, Buffalo, New York, USA. 3. Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA. 5. Canon Stroke and Vascular Research Center, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA. 6. Jacobs Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA. 7. Department of Bioinformatics, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transradial access for neurointerventions offers advantages of fewer access-site complications, reduced procedure time, and greater patient comfort over transfemoral access. Data about transradial access for flow diversion are limited. We share our early experience with transradial access for flow diversion in a relatively large case series. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent Pipeline embolization device (Medtronic) deployment via transradial access were included in the study, irrespective of location and laterality of the intracranial aneurysm. The cases were performed between July 2016 and October 2019. Demographics, aneurysm characteristics, and procedure-related details (including catheter systems used) were recorded and statistically evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-five transradial flow diversion procedures were attempted in 32 patients, of which 33 procedures were successful. In two cases involving left common carotid artery and internal carotid artery access, guide catheter herniation into the aortic arch led to abandonment of transradial access in favor of transfemoral access. The most common aneurysm locations in the transradial access procedures were the posterior communicating artery (n = 7), ophthalmic artery (n = 7), and superior hypophyseal artery (n = 7). Most transradial access procedures (66.7%) were performed using a biaxial catheter system. 6-French Benchmark (Penumbra) and Phenom 27 (Medtronic) were the most commonly utilized guide- and microcatheters, respectively. One patient had intraprocedural subarachnoid hemorrhage. No access-site complications occurred. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates safety and feasibility of transradial access for Pipeline embolization device deployment and shows the versatility of this approach for different catheter systems. Tortuosity and acute angulation of the left common carotid artery and internal carotid artery were associated with approach failure.
BACKGROUND: Transradial access for neurointerventions offers advantages of fewer access-site complications, reduced procedure time, and greater patient comfort over transfemoral access. Data about transradial access for flow diversion are limited. We share our early experience with transradial access for flow diversion in a relatively large case series. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent Pipeline embolization device (Medtronic) deployment via transradial access were included in the study, irrespective of location and laterality of the intracranial aneurysm. The cases were performed between July 2016 and October 2019. Demographics, aneurysm characteristics, and procedure-related details (including catheter systems used) were recorded and statistically evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-five transradial flow diversion procedures were attempted in 32 patients, of which 33 procedures were successful. In two cases involving left common carotid artery and internal carotid artery access, guide catheter herniation into the aortic arch led to abandonment of transradial access in favor of transfemoral access. The most common aneurysm locations in the transradial access procedures were the posterior communicating artery (n = 7), ophthalmic artery (n = 7), and superior hypophyseal artery (n = 7). Most transradial access procedures (66.7%) were performed using a biaxial catheter system. 6-French Benchmark (Penumbra) and Phenom 27 (Medtronic) were the most commonly utilized guide- and microcatheters, respectively. One patient had intraprocedural subarachnoid hemorrhage. No access-site complications occurred. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates safety and feasibility of transradial access for Pipeline embolization device deployment and shows the versatility of this approach for different catheter systems. Tortuosity and acute angulation of the left common carotid artery and internal carotid artery were associated with approach failure.
Authors: Samir Sur; Brian Snelling; Priyank Khandelwal; Justin M Caplan; Eric C Peterson; Robert M Starke; Dileep R Yavagal Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Stephanie H Chen; Brian M Snelling; Sumedh Subodh Shah; Samir Sur; Marie Christine Brunet; Robert M Starke; Dileep R Yavagal; Joshua W Osbun; Eric C Peterson Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Sumedh S Shah; Brian M Snelling; Marie Christine Brunet; Samir Sur; David J McCarthy; Alan Stein; Priyank Khandelwal; Robert M Starke; Eric C Peterson Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Ahmad Sweid; Robert M Starke; Nabeel Herial; Nohra Chalouhi; Vivian Xu; Kavya Shivashankar; Lohit Velagapudi; Stavropoula Tjoumakaris; Michael R Gooch; David Hasan; Hekmat Zarzour; Robert H Rosenwasser; Pascal Jabbour Journal: J Neurosurg Sci Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Marco Valgimigli; Andrea Gagnor; Paolo Calabró; Enrico Frigoli; Sergio Leonardi; Tiziana Zaro; Paolo Rubartelli; Carlo Briguori; Giuseppe Andò; Alessandra Repetto; Ugo Limbruno; Bernardo Cortese; Paolo Sganzerla; Alessandro Lupi; Mario Galli; Salvatore Colangelo; Salvatore Ierna; Arturo Ausiello; Patrizia Presbitero; Gennaro Sardella; Ferdinando Varbella; Giovanni Esposito; Andrea Santarelli; Simone Tresoldi; Marco Nazzaro; Antonio Zingarelli; Nicoletta de Cesare; Stefano Rigattieri; Paolo Tosi; Cataldo Palmieri; Salvatore Brugaletta; Sunil V Rao; Dik Heg; Martina Rothenbühler; Pascal Vranckx; Peter Jüni Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: B Daou; R M Starke; N Chalouhi; S Tjoumakaris; D Hasan; J Khoury; R H Rosenwasser; P Jabbour Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Krishna C Joshi; André Beer-Furlan; R Webster Crowley; Michael Chen; Stephan A Munich Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: E Shotar; G Pouliquen; K Premat; A Pouvelle; S Mouyal; L Meyblum; S Lenck; V Degos; S Abi Jaoude; N Sourour; B Mathon; F Clarençon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.825
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