Initial Experience with Transradial Access for Cerebrovascular Procedures: Is It Feasible and Safe?

Evaluating the safety and efficacy of transradial approach for thrombectomy in posterior circulation stroke. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transradial access (TRA) is becoming more popular in neurointerventional radiology procedures and has been associated with reduced mortality, morbidity and access site complications. Guidelines state that TRA is a feasible option for posterior circulation thrombectomy however the evidence base is limited and no systematic literature review has yet been undertaken to evaluate its safety and efficacy.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, TRIP and Embase databases were searched. Outcomes collected included TICI scores, puncture to recanalisation time, mRS scores at 90 days and access site complications.

RESULTS

291 records were identified and 31 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were meta-analysed. The rate of TICI 2b-3 was 94.7% (89.7-99.8% at 95% CI), TICI 3 was 67.9% (42.2-93.6% at 95% CI) and mRS 0-2 at 90 days was 49.8% (31.5-68.1% at 95% CI). Median puncture to reperfusion times were extracted from three studies as 24 (IQR 18-40), 24 (IQR 17.5-56.5) and 27 (IQR 24-33.5) minutes. No access site complications were reported. TICI 2b-3, TICI 3 and mRS scores were comparable to data for transfemoral access (TFA) from a large systematic review. Puncture to recanalisation times appeared lower than the TFA data but statistical comparison of this outcome was not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of TRA in posterior circulation thrombectomy is safe and effective with comparable results to TFA. Further research with a larger sample size is required to fully investigate the potential for shortened puncture to recanalisation times.

Transradial and transfemoral accesses for cerebral angiography: a retrospective comparative study

OBJECTIVE

Many large randomized trials in interventional cardiology have shown a significant advantage of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA). However, TRA has yet been widely used in Neurovascular interventional surgery. The purpose of this retrospective comparative study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of transradial and transfemoral accesses for cerebral angiography.

METHODS

A total of 380 patients underwent cerebral angiography in our center between January 2019 and January 2021. Among them, 192 patients underwent TRA, and 188 patients via TFA. The success rate of cerebral angiography, X-ray time, total absorbed dose, dose-area product (DAP), complications, and other clinical data were extracted.

RESULTS

The operative success (94.27% vs 97.87%; P = 0.071) and the puncture failure (1.56% vs 1.60%) were not significantly different between the TRA and TFA groups. Only arterial spasm, which is more common in the TRA group, was substantially different between the two groups in terms of surgical consequences (P = 0.015). In addition, there were no significant differences between the groups in total absorbed dose (P = 0.604) and DAP(P = 0.097). However, the X-ray time of the TRA group [281.50(216.30,342.00)] was shorter than the TFA group [296.50(230.80,363.50)] (P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

TRA is effective and safe in cerebral angiography, and its use may be expanded.

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.