OBJECTIVES: The transradial approach (TRA) is technically feasible for both diagnostic and therapeutic neurointerventions. It improves patient comfort and is not associated with increased procedural complications when compared to the transfemoral approach (TFA). To date, no studies have looked at barriers to adoption of TRA in the neurointerventionalist community. This study aims to obtain neurointerventionalist perspectives on their adoption of TRA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online survey distributed to neurointerventionalists. RESULTS: A total of 55 neurointerventionalists, 52 of whom utilized TRA, responded to our survey. Overall, participants were not concerned about TRA's technical feasibility for diagnostic or therapeutic neurointerventions or about procedural complications. Most of our cohort adopted TRA due to its increased patient comfort and to reduce access site complications. In-institution interventionalists were strongly perceived to be the most effective method of teaching TRA when compared to other methods. Catheters and equipment issues were reported by about 30% of our cohort as a barrier to TRA adoption. CONCLUSIONS: The neurointerventionalist community largely perceives TRA to be technically feasible and was not concerned about its procedural complications. In-person institutionalists are strongly perceived to be the most effective method of teaching the approach. A significant barrier to adoption seems to be related to catheters and equipment issues.
OBJECTIVES: The transradial approach (TRA) is technically feasible for both diagnostic and therapeutic neurointerventions. It improves patient comfort and is not associated with increased procedural complications when compared to the transfemoral approach (TFA). To date, no studies have looked at barriers to adoption of TRA in the neurointerventionalist community. This study aims to obtain neurointerventionalist perspectives on their adoption of TRA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online survey distributed to neurointerventionalists. RESULTS: A total of 55 neurointerventionalists, 52 of whom utilized TRA, responded to our survey. Overall, participants were not concerned about TRA's technical feasibility for diagnostic or therapeutic neurointerventions or about procedural complications. Most of our cohort adopted TRA due to its increased patient comfort and to reduce access site complications. In-institution interventionalists were strongly perceived to be the most effective method of teaching TRA when compared to other methods. Catheters and equipment issues were reported by about 30% of our cohort as a barrier to TRA adoption. CONCLUSIONS: The neurointerventionalist community largely perceives TRA to be technically feasible and was not concerned about its procedural complications. In-person institutionalists are strongly perceived to be the most effective method of teaching the approach. A significant barrier to adoption seems to be related to catheters and equipment issues.