H Alshehri1, A A Dmytriw1, K Bhatia2, S Bickford1, V Rea1, N Shkumat1, P Muthusami3. 1. From the Divisions of Neuroradiology and Image-Guided Therapy (H.A., A.A.D., S.B., V.R., N.S., P.M.), Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Medical Imaging (K.B.), Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia. 3. From the Divisions of Neuroradiology and Image-Guided Therapy (H.A., A.A.D., S.B., V.R., N.S., P.M.), Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada prakash.muthusami@sickkids.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The feasibility and safety of transradial angiography is not established outside the adult literature. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of transradial access for neuroangiography in adolescents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed, comparing transradial neuroendovascular procedures in adolescents (age range, 10-18 years) with an age- and procedure-matched cohort of transfemoral neuroendovascular procedures. Clinical and procedural details, including type of procedure, conversion rate, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, complications, and readmissions, were reported by descriptive statistics or measures of central tendency and compared using a t test or nonparametric equivalent. A P value < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Twenty adolescents (mean age, 14.6 [SD, 1.7] years, M/F ratio = 9:11) who underwent transradial neuroangiography were compared against 20 adolescents (mean age, 14.4 [SD, 2.1 ] years, M/F ratio = 12:8) who underwent transfemoral neuroangiography. We found no significant difference in procedural success (0% conversion rate), fluoroscopy times (33.7 [SD, 40.2] minutes versus 23.3 [SD, 26.2] minutes, P = .34) and radiation dose (150.9 [SD, 133.7] Gy×cm2 and 122.9 [SD, 79.7] Gy×cm,2 P = .43) There were 2 self-limiting postprocedural complications in the transradial group. There were no major hemorrhages, need for further interventions, or readmissions in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of transradial angiography described for adults can likely be safely extended to adolescents. These are important data before transitioning to smaller children and should be prospectively evaluated in a larger cohort.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The feasibility and safety of transradial angiography is not established outside the adult literature. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of transradial access for neuroangiography in adolescents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed, comparing transradial neuroendovascular procedures in adolescents (age range, 10-18 years) with an age- and procedure-matched cohort of transfemoral neuroendovascular procedures. Clinical and procedural details, including type of procedure, conversion rate, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, complications, and readmissions, were reported by descriptive statistics or measures of central tendency and compared using a t test or nonparametric equivalent. A P value < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Twenty adolescents (mean age, 14.6 [SD, 1.7] years, M/F ratio = 9:11) who underwent transradial neuroangiography were compared against 20 adolescents (mean age, 14.4 [SD, 2.1 ] years, M/F ratio = 12:8) who underwent transfemoral neuroangiography. We found no significant difference in procedural success (0% conversion rate), fluoroscopy times (33.7 [SD, 40.2] minutes versus 23.3 [SD, 26.2] minutes, P = .34) and radiation dose (150.9 [SD, 133.7] Gy×cm2 and 122.9 [SD, 79.7] Gy×cm,2 P = .43) There were 2 self-limiting postprocedural complications in the transradial group. There were no major hemorrhages, need for further interventions, or readmissions in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of transradial angiography described for adults can likely be safely extended to adolescents. These are important data before transitioning to smaller children and should be prospectively evaluated in a larger cohort.
Authors: Michael J Greenwood; Anthony J Della-Siega; Eric B Fretz; David Kinloch; Peter Klinke; Richard Mildenberger; Malcolm B Williams; David Hilton Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-11-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Elena Franchi; Paolo Marino; Giuseppe G Biondi-Zoccai; Giuseppe De Luca; Corrado Vassanelli; Pierfrancesco Agostoni Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Connie N Hess; Eric D Peterson; Megan L Neely; David Dai; William B Hillegass; Mitchell W Krucoff; Michael A Kutcher; John C Messenger; Samir Pancholy; Robert N Piana; Sunil V Rao Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Visish M Srinivasan; Caroline C Hadley; Marc Prablek; Melissa LoPresti; Stephanie H Chen; Eric C Peterson; Ahmad Sweid; Pascal Jabbour; Christopher Young; Michael Levitt; Joshua W Osbun; Jan-Karl Burkhardt; Jeremiah Johnson; Peter Kan Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Peter J Mason; Binita Shah; Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland; John A Bittl; Mauricio G Cohen; Jordan Safirstein; Douglas E Drachman; Javier A Valle; Denise Rhodes; Ian C Gilchrist Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 6.546