Transradial approach for diagnostic cerebral angiograms in the elderly: a comparative observational study

Therapeutic efficacy and complications of radial versus femoral access in endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms

PURPOSE

The transradial approach (TRA) in neuroendovascular treatment is known to have a lower risk of complications than the transfemoral approach (TFA). However, little research has focused on assessments of efficacy and risk of complications in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and complications of TRA and TFA in coil embolization of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) at our institution.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent endovascular surgery via TRA or TFA at a single institution from 1 April 2019, to 28 February 2022, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified into TRA and TFA groups and assessed using propensity-adjusted analysis for outcomes including fluoroscopy time, volume embolization ratio (VER), and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 163 consecutive UIAs were treated with coil embolization during the 35-months study period. The incidence of minor access site complications (ASCs) was significantly higher with TFA (20%, 25/126) than with TRA (2.7%, 1/37; p = 0.01). Propensity-adjusted analysis (matched for age, sex, aneurysm volume, embolization technique, and sheath size) revealed that TRA was associated with a lower risk of minor ASCs (odds ratio, 0.085; 95% confidence interval 0.0094-0.78; p = 0.029). However, TRA did not differ significantly from TFA with respect to fluoroscopy time, VER, major ASCs, and non-ASCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Coil embolization for UIAs via TRA can reduce risk of minor ASCs without increasing the risk of non-ASCs compared with conventional TFA, and can achieve comparable results in term of efficacy and fluoroscopy time.

Comparison of radiation exposure and clinical outcomes between transradial and transfemoral diagnostic cerebral approaches: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To identify and compare patient and procedural variables that are associated with a high radiation dose exposure and worse clinical outcomes between transradial arterial (TRA) and transfemoral arterial (TFA) approaches.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis.

SETTING

A community hospital during the initial phase of adopting a TRA-first approach.

PARTICIPANTS

A resultant 215 subjects who only underwent diagnostic cerebral angiograms (DCA) after excluding all therapeutic procedures and patients under 18 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Only DCA from 1 May 2018 to 31 January 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We compared radiation exposure parameters (total fluoroscopy time (FT), total radiation dose (TD) and dose area product (DAP), number of vessels injected and Patient-Reported Global Health Physical and Mental Outcome Scores (PROGHS) at 30 days postprocedure between groups.

RESULTS

FT was significantly greater in TRA compared with TFA (p<0.001). In addition, TRA had a significantly higher TD (p=0.002) and DAP (p=0.005) when compared with TFA. Analysis of only 6-vessel DCAs also showed that TRA had a significantly higher FT, DAP and TD in comparison to TFA. Despite observing a longer FT in TRA, results showed fewer vessels injected and a notably lower success rate in acquiring a 6-vessel DCA using the TRA. Further analysis of the effect of vessel number on FT using general linear models showed that with every increase of one vessel, the FT increases by 2.2 min for TRA (p<0.001; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.36) and by 1.3 min for TFA (p<0.001; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.83). There was no significant difference between groups in PROGHS mental and physical t-scores at 30 days postprocedure, even though our cohort showed a significantly greater percentage of TRA procedures done in the outpatient setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting a TRA first approach for DCAs may be initially associated with a higher radiation dose for the patient. Better strategies and devices are needed to mitigate this effect.

Complications of transradial versus transfemoral access for neuroendovascular procedures: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transradial access (TRA) has gained increased usage among neurointerventionalists. However, the overall safety profile of access site complications (ASCs) and non-access site complications (NASCs) of TRA versus transfemoral access (TFA) for neuroendovascular procedures remains unclear.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis using a random effects model was conducted to investigate the pooled odds ratios (OR) of ASCs and NASCs. Randomized, case-control, and cohort studies comparing access-related complications were analyzed. An assessment of study heterogeneity and publication bias was also completed.

RESULTS

Seventeen comparative studies met the inclusion criteria for final analysis. Overall, there was a composite ASC rate of 1.8% (49/2767) versus 3.2% (168/5222) for TRA and TFA, respectively (P<0.001). TRA was associated with a lower odds of ASC compared with TFA (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68, P<0.001, I²=31%). There was significantly lower odds of complications within the intervention and diagnostic subgroups. For NASC, TRA had a lower composite incidence of complications than TFA at 1.2% (31/2586) versus 4.2% (207/4909), P<0.001). However, on meta-analysis, we found no significant difference overall between TRA and TFA for NASCs (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.22, P=0.28, I²=0%), which was also the case on subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSION

On meta-analysis, the current literature indicates that TRA is associated with a lower incidence of ASCs compared with TFA, but is not associated with a lower rate of NASCs.

Adoption of the Transradial Approach for Neurointerventions: A National Survey of Current Practitioners

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.