Ahmad Sweid1, Somnath Das1, Joshua H Weinberg1, Kareem E L Naamani2, Julie Kim3, Darcy Curtis3, Daniel Joffe3, Cannon Greco Hiranaka3, Darshana Vijaywargiya4, Chrissa Sioka5, Mazen Oneissi6, Abdel Hadi El Hajjar7, Michael Reid Gooch1, Nabeel Herial1, Stavropoula I Tjoumakaris1, Robert H Rosenwasser1, Pascal Jabbour8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The transradial approach (TRA) reduces mortality, morbidity, access site complications, hospital cost, and length of stay while maximizing patient satisfaction. We aimed to assess the technical success and safety of TRA for elderly patients (aged ≥75 years).
METHODS: A retrospective chart review and comparative analysis was performed for elderly patients undergoing a diagnostic cerebral angiogram performed via TRA versus transfemoral approach (TFA). Also, a second comparative analysis was performed among the TRA cohort between elderly patients and their younger counterparts.
RESULTS: Comparative analysis in the elderly (TRA vs TFA) showed no significant differences for contrast dose per vessel (43.7 vs 34.6 mL, P=0.106), fluoroscopy time per vessel (5.7 vs 5.2 min, P=0.849), procedure duration (59.8 vs 65.2 min, P=0.057), conversion rate (5.8% vs 2.9%, P=0.650), and access site complications (2.3% vs 2.9%, P=1.00). Radiation exposure per vessel (18.9 vs 51.9 Gy cm2, P=0.001) was significantly lower in the elderly TRA group.The second comparison (TRA in elderly vs TRA in the young) showed no significant differences for contrast dose per vessel (43.7 vs 37.8 mL, P=0.185), radiation exposure per vessel (18.9 vs 16.5 Gy cm2, P=0.507), procedure duration (59.8 vs 58.3 min, P=0.788), access site complication (2.3% vs 1.7%, P=0.55), and conversation rate (5.8% vs 1.8%, P=0.092). A trend for prolonged fluoroscopy time per vessel (5.7 vs 4.7 min, P=0.050) was observed in the elderly TRA group.
CONCLUSIONS: TRA is a technically feasible and safe option for diagnostic neurointerventional procedures in the elderly. Our small elderly cohort was not powered enough to show a significant difference in terms of access site complications between TRA and TFA. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
BACKGROUND: The transradial approach (TRA) reduces mortality, morbidity, access site complications, hospital cost, and length of stay while maximizing patient satisfaction. We aimed to assess the technical success and safety of TRA for elderly patients (aged ≥75 years).
METHODS: A retrospective chart review and comparative analysis was performed for elderly patients undergoing a diagnostic cerebral angiogram performed via TRA versus transfemoral approach (TFA). Also, a second comparative analysis was performed among the TRA cohort between elderly patients and their younger counterparts.
RESULTS: Comparative analysis in the elderly (TRA vs TFA) showed no significant differences for contrast dose per vessel (43.7 vs 34.6 mL, P=0.106), fluoroscopy time per vessel (5.7 vs 5.2 min, P=0.849), procedure duration (59.8 vs 65.2 min, P=0.057), conversion rate (5.8% vs 2.9%, P=0.650), and access site complications (2.3% vs 2.9%, P=1.00). Radiation exposure per vessel (18.9 vs 51.9 Gy cm2, P=0.001) was significantly lower in the elderly TRA group.The second comparison (TRA in elderly vs TRA in the young) showed no significant differences for contrast dose per vessel (43.7 vs 37.8 mL, P=0.185), radiation exposure per vessel (18.9 vs 16.5 Gy cm2, P=0.507), procedure duration (59.8 vs 58.3 min, P=0.788), access site complication (2.3% vs 1.7%, P=0.55), and conversation rate (5.8% vs 1.8%, P=0.092). A trend for prolonged fluoroscopy time per vessel (5.7 vs 4.7 min, P=0.050) was observed in the elderly TRA group.
CONCLUSIONS: TRA is a technically feasible and safe option for diagnostic neurointerventional procedures in the elderly. Our small elderly cohort was not powered enough to show a significant difference in terms of access site complications between TRA and TFA. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Entities:
Keywords:
angiography; brain; intervention
Mesh：
Year: 2020
PMID： 32769110 DOI： 10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016140
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurointerv Surg ISSN： 1759-8478 Impact factor: 5.836