Feasibility of repeat transradial access for neuroendovascular procedures
- 1 April 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
- Vol. 12 (4), 431-434
- https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015438
Abstract
Introduction Transradial artery access (TRA) for cerebrovascular angiography is increasing due to decreased access site complications and overwhelming patient preference. While interventional cardiologists have reported up to 10 successive TRA procedures via the same radial access site, this is the first study examining successive use of the same artery for repeat procedures in neurointerventional procedures.1 Methods We reviewed our prospective institutional database for all patients who underwent a transradial neurointerventional procedure between 2015 and 2019. Index procedures were defined as procedures performed via TRA after which there was a second TRA procedure attempted. Reasons for conversion to a transfemoral approach (TFA) for subsequent procedures were identified. Results 104 patients underwent 237 procedures (230 TRA, 7 TFA). 97 patients underwent >= 2 TRA procedures, 20 patients >3, four patients >4, three patients >5, and two patients >6 TRA procedures. The success rate was 94.7% (126/133) with 52% (66/126) of successive procedures performed via the same radial access site (snuffbox vs antebrachial) while the alternate radial artery segment was used for access in 48% (60/126) of subsequent procedures. There were seven (5.3%) cases requiring crossover to TFA, six cases for radial artery occlusion (RAO) and one for radial artery narrowing. Conclusion Successive TRA is both technically feasible and safe for neuroendovascular procedures in up to six procedures. The low failure rate (5.3%) was primarily due to RAO. Thus, even without clinical consequences, strategies to minimize RAO should be optimized for patients to continue to benefit from TRA in future procedures.This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- An Update on Radial Artery Access and Best Practices for Transradial Coronary Angiography and Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart AssociationCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2018
- Health Economic Analysis of Access Site Practice in England During Changes in PracticeCirculation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 2018
- Transradial cerebral angiography: techniques and outcomesJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, 2018
- Patient preference for radial versus femoral vascular access for elective coronary procedures: The PREVAS studyCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 2018
- Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery diseaseEmergencias, 2018
- Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trialThe Lancet, 2015
- Successive transradial access for coronary procedures: Experience of Quebec Heart-Lung InstituteAmerican Heart Journal, 2013
- Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trialThe Lancet, 2011
- A Randomized Comparison of Transradial Versus Transfemoral Approach for Coronary Angiography and AngioplastyJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2009
- Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trialsAmerican Heart Journal, 2009