Transradial access for renal artery intervention is feasible and safe

Revascularization for Renovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Renovascular disease is a major causal factor for secondary hypertension and renal ischemic disease. However, several prospective, randomized trials for atherosclerotic disease failed to demonstrate that renal revascularization is more effective than medical therapy for most patients. These results have greatly reduced the generalized diagnostic workup and use of renal revascularization. Most guidelines and review articles emphasize the limited average improvement and fail to identify those clinical populations that do benefit from revascularization. On the basis of the clinical experience of hypertension centers, specialists have continued selective revascularization, albeit without a summary statement by a major, multidisciplinary, national organization that identifies specific populations that may benefit. In this scientific statement for health care professionals and the public-at-large, we review the strengths and weaknesses of randomized trials in revascularization and highlight (1) when referral for consideration of diagnostic workup and therapy may be warranted, (2) the evidence/rationale for these selective scenarios, (3) interventional and surgical techniques for effective revascularization, and (4) areas of research with unmet need.

Comparison of transradial and transfemoral access for transcatheter arterial embolization of iatrogenic renal hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

There are few reports of renal artery embolization (RAE) via transradial access (TRA) for renal hemorrhage, and none have compared outcomes of RAE via TRA and transfemoral access (TFA). The objective was to compare technical and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing RAE via TRA or TFA for iatrogenic renal hemorrhage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 45 RAE procedures (16 TRA and 29 TFA) for iatrogenic renal hemorrhage in 43 patients performed at a tertiary referral center between October 2018 and December 2020. Information regarding underlying diseases, coagulation status, angiographic and embolization procedure details, technical and clinical successes, and complications were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

There were no differences in demographics, underlying diseases, updated Charlson comorbidity scores, angiographic findings, and volume of contrast material between the TRA and TFA groups. By contrast, prothrombin time and international normalized ratio were significantly lower in the TRA than in the TFA group. Embolic materials differed significantly in the two groups. Procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, digital subtraction angiography number, and dose area product were slightly lower in the TRA than in the TFA group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Technical and clinical success rates in the TRA and TFA groups were 100% and 96.6%, and 100% and 96.6%, respectively. No patient in either group experienced procedure-related complications during a 4 week follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

RAE via TRA in the management of iatrogenic renal hemorrhage was safe and feasible, with similar procedure duration and radiation exposure to RAE via TFA. TRA may be an acceptable alternative to TFA in these patients.

Renal Arteriography via Radial Artery Access with a 125 cm Long Angiographic Catheter

A 125 cm long catheter makes it possible to perform renal arteriography via radial artery, but its feasibility and safety remain unclear. Our study recruited 1,323 patients grouped by two different vascular accesses to renal arteriography, i.e., femoral artery access and radial artery access. The success rate of angiography was 100% in both groups. Differential analysis showed that the overall complication incidence of radial artery access group was significantly lower (2.5% for radial artery access vs. 4.8% for femoral artery access, p = 0.03). From this study, we suggest that using the 125 cm angiographic catheter to perform renal arteriography via radial artery access is feasible and safe.

Description of Technique and Short-Term Outcomes of Radial Artery Access for Vascular Disease

Objectives:

Radial artery access is widely utilized in coronary angiography with reported lower rates of vascular complications and better patient comfort. There is limited data in the literature regarding radial access in peripheral endovascular procedures. We hypothesize that radial access is safe and feasible for peripheral endovascular procedures.

Methods:

A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients who underwent angiography using radial artery access between August 2013 and December 2017. Patient demographics and perioperative data were recorded and analyzed.

Patient Selection:

The operating surgeon screened patients presenting for elective angiography for possible radial artery access. Ultrasound guidance was used in all cases. Upon cannulation, the sheath was infused with an antispasmodic cocktail, and the patients were systemically anticoagulated.

Results:

Forty-seven out of 52 patients successfully completed their procedure (90% success rate). The patients were mostly female (60%), elderly (mean age of 71 years), and had several comorbidities. Preoperative diagnoses were variable. Procedures were both diagnostic (58%) and interventional (42%) with maximum sheath size used being 7F and median fluoroscopy time of 7.5 minutes. Only 2 patients experienced perioperative complications, and both of these were minor hematomas that resolved with manual pressure.

Conclusions:

Transradial arterial access for peripheral vascular angiography and interventions is safe and feasible. With low complication rates and increased patient comfort, transradial access serves as an excellent alternative to transfemoral access for a variety of endovascular procedures.

Radial Access for Peripheral Interventions

Peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) improves quality of life and reduces major adverse limb events in patients with peripheral arterial disease. PVI is commonly performed via the femoral artery, and the most common adverse periprocedural event is a vascular access complication. Transradial access for PVI has the potential to reduce vascular access complications and improve patient outcomes. Further study is needed to elucidate the risks of stroke, acute kidney injury, and radiation exposure in the setting of transradial PVI. As transradial access for PVI progresses, it will be important to build the evidence base along with procedural experience.