Transradial vs transfemoral access in patients with hepatic malignancy and undergoing hepatic interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Procedural Feasibility and Peri-procedural Outcomes of Peripheral Endovascular Therapy via Transradial versus Transfemoral Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of transradial access for peripheral vascular interventions.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and Embase.

REVIEW METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to June 2023 to identify studies investigating the outcomes of lower extremity, carotid, and visceral artery vascular interventions via transradial vs. transfemoral access. The primary outcome was procedural failure rate. Secondary outcomes were total access site complications, minor and major bleeding, stroke, access vessel occlusion, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume.

RESULTS

Eight randomised controlled trials and 29 observational studies yielded a total of 70 882 patients treated via transradial (n = 2 616) vs. transfemoral access (n = 68 338). The overall failure rate was 2.3 ± 0.7%, and the transradial approach was associated with a statistically significantly higher procedural failure rate than the transfemoral approach (3.9 ± 0.7% vs. 1.0 ± 0.3%; odds ratio [OR] 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.84 - 5.12; I2 = 32%; p < .001). Subgroup analysis showed the highest failure rate in lower extremity interventions with 12.4 ± 4.9% for transradial vs. 4.0 ± 1.2% for transfemoral access. Conversely, procedural complications were statistically significantly fewer with transradial access for total access site complications (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.91; I2 = 36%; p = .010). Minor bleeding was statistically significantly less with the transradial approach (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.86; I2 = 30%; p = .010), whereas major bleeding and stroke rates were similar. Transradial access had more access vessel occlusion than transfemoral access (1.9% ± 0.5% vs. < 0.1% ± 0.0%; p = .004), although most remained asymptomatic. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume were all comparable. GRADE certainty was low to moderate in most outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The transradial approach was associated with a higher procedural failure rate. Total access site complications and minor bleeding were lower with the transradial approach, albeit with more frequent access vessel occlusion. Transradial access may be a feasible and safe approach; however, appropriate patient selection is imperative.

Comparison Between Radial and Femoral Artery Access for Transarterial Chemoembolisation in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the technical success rate, the selectivity of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE), the complication rate, the radiation dose given to the patients and the hospitalization stay between TACE performed using femoral artery approach (FAA) and TACE performed using radial artery approach (RAA) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Between June 2020 and April 2022, 49 patients with HCC who underwent 116 TACEs (75 using FAA and 41 using RAA) were included. Differences in technical success rate, selectivity of micro-catheterization, radiation dose given to the patients, fluoroscopy time, hospitalization stay duration, and complication rate were compared between FAA and RAA using Fisher exact or Student t tests.

RESULTS

No differences in technical success rates were found between RAA (93%; 39/41 TACEs) and FAA (100%; 75/75 TACEs) (P = .12). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of selectivity of catheterization, radiation dose, fluoroscopy time and hospitalization stay duration. Five patients had Grade 2 complications (hematoma) after FAA vs. one patient with one Grade 1 complication (radial artery occlusion) after RAA (5/75 [7%] vs. 1/41 [2%], respectively; P = .42). No major arterial access site complications occurred with FAA or RAA.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that RAA is a safe approach that does not compromise the technical efficacy and the selectivity of TACE compared to FAA in patients with HCC.

Chinese expert consensus on transradial access in percutaneous peripheral interventions

Transradial access (TRA) is a safe and comfortable approach and the preferred access for percutaneous coronary intervention. However, TRA is not widely used for peripheral interventions. Currently, there is a lack of data on patient selection, appropriate medical devices, complication prevention, and TRA adoption. Therefore, the Chinese Society of Interventional Oncology of the China Anti-Cancer Association organized nationwide experts to establish a Working Group of China Expert Consensus on TRA in percutaneous peripheral interventions in 2022, and jointly formulated this consensus to better promote the application of TRA in peripheral interventions to guide clinicians on patient selection, technical recommendations, and physician training. This consensus mainly focuses on the current situation, advantages and limitations of TRA in peripheral interventions, anatomical characteristics of the radial artery, patient selection, technical aspects, prevention and management of complications, radiation dose, and learning curve. A consensus was reached through a literature evaluation and by referring to the opinions of the expert group.

Transradial Access for Transarterial Radioembolization (TARE) in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison with Transfemoral Access

PURPOSE

To compare safety, efficacy, radiation exposure and patients comfort in patients of transradial access (TRA) in patients undergoing TARE compared with transfemoral access (TFA) including patient radiation exposure and patient comfort.

METHODS

A total of 222 patients undergoing technetium-99 m macro-aggregated albumin and TARE were retrospectively reviewed from 2017 to 2022. We analyzed procedure-related pain, quality of life, recovery time, procedure time, fluoroscopy time (FT), air kerma product and air kerma (AK) to compare the two access for intervention for HCC.

RESULTS

A total of 222 [(TFA (n = 147) and TRA (n = 75)] patients who underwent TARE for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were included. No significant difference was found regarding FT and DAP in comparison of TRA and TFA. (p = 0.385, p = 0.842). While the mean AK was 892.7 mGy in TFA patients, it was 545.2 mGy in TRA patients and there was statistically significant difference (p = 0.017). Patients who underwent TRA had significantly shorter hospital stays, and recovery times compared to those who underwent TFA (p = 0.001, p = 0.001). In terms of both mental health and physical function, TRA versus TFA has been observed to produce more favorable outcomes (p = 0.044, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

TRA access for TARE procedures significantly enhances patient comfort and satisfaction. The total radiation dose exposed to the patients who underwent TRA access was found to be significantly lower than the patients who underwent TFA access.

The feasibility and safety of the brachial artery approach in the treatment of hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy: a retrospective study

Background

Compared to hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) treatment through the femoral artery (TFA), the brachial artery (TBA) is more flexible and easier for patients to accept. However, the feasibility of TBA has not been studied yet. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of HAIC via the TBA.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 63 patients with primary liver cancer who were treated with HAIC via TBA. In this study, a total of 163 HAIC procedures were performed via the left brachial artery pathway, and each patient underwent an average of 2.59 procedures. One patient received 5 treatments, 18 patients received 4 treatments, 15 patients received 3 treatments, 12 patients received 2 treatments, and 17 patients received 1 treatment. The main evaluation indicators were the technical success rate and complication rate.

Results

The main technical success rate was 99.4% (162/163). No patient required conversion to the femoral artery (TFA) access. All the complications were minor and occurred in 11 patients (6.75%). Subcutaneous ecchymosis occurred in 3 (1.84%) patients, arterial thrombosis in 2 patients (1.23%), and catheter displacement in 6 patients (3.68%). No serious complications occurred.

Conclusions

TBA pathway is feasible and safe for HAIC treatment of liver cancer patients. More research is needed in the future to confirm whether TBA is superior to other pathways.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for TACE: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) has been widely applied in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our study aimed to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of transradial access as an alternative to transfemoral access for TACE.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TACE were divided into the radial artery (RA) route group or the femoral artery (FA) route group according to the operation approach, namely, transradial or transfemoral access. We retrospectively analysed the clinical characteristics, technical outcomes, clinical efficacy and incidence of adverse events to compare the two technologies for intervention for HCC.

RESULTS

Transradial access was found to achieve superior technical outcomes and clinical efficacy, as the patients in the RA group had a lower rate of hepatic arterial spasm, a higher partial response rate and a lower progression rate than the patients in the FA group according to the mRECIST evaluations. In contrast, the liver function indices and VAS (visual analogue scale) pain scores were consistent across the two groups. Moreover, patients in the RA group had a shorter length of stay than those in the FA group, despite similar hospitalization expenses. The total adverse events were significantly reduced by transradial access for TACE (72.5% vs. 84.1%, P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggested that transradial access is an effective and feasible alternative to transfemoral access for TACE. Large-scale prospective randomized controlled studies are expected.

Transradial Access: A Comprehensive Review

Transradial access (TRA) via the left radial artery is an alternative to traditional transfemoral access for catheter-based procedures that is becoming increasingly more relevant in all types of arterial vascular interventions. First investigated in the realm of cardiology, TRA has been proven to provide many benefits (such as lower complication rates, lower cost, and improved patient comfort during and after the procedure) when compared with traditional femoral access while maintaining efficacy. This article provides an in-depth summary of the technical aspects of radial access while incorporating more recent data to explain patient preference for TRA, and the ways that TRA can improve peri-procedure workflow and compensation. It also describes potential complications, such as radial artery spasm, difficult anatomic variants and radial artery occlusion, and then gives techniques for mitigating and treating these complications. The article explains why TRA has become an important option for vascular and interventional radiology physicians, and why it is likely that this will continue to grow in relevance.

European guidelines on chronic mesenteric ischaemia - joint United European Gastroenterology, European Association for Gastroenterology, Endoscopy and Nutrition, European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology, Netherlands Association of Hepatogastroenterologists, Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, and Dutch Mesenteric Ischemia Study group clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia

Chronic mesenteric ischaemia is a severe and incapacitating disease, causing complaints of post-prandial pain, fear of eating and weight loss. Even though chronic mesenteric ischaemia may progress to acute mesenteric ischaemia, chronic mesenteric ischaemia remains an underappreciated and undertreated disease entity. Probable explanations are the lack of knowledge and awareness among physicians and the lack of a gold standard diagnostic test. The underappreciation of this disease results in diagnostic delays, underdiagnosis and undertreating of patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia, potentially resulting in fatal acute mesenteric ischaemia. This guideline provides a comprehensive overview and repository of the current evidence and multidisciplinary expert agreement on pertinent issues regarding diagnosis and treatment, and provides guidance in the multidisciplinary field of chronic mesenteric ischaemia.

Single-Center Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Transradial, Transbrachial, and Transfemoral Approach for Mesenteric Arterial Procedures

PURPOSE

To assess feasibility and safety of transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) and transbrachial access (TBA) for mesenteric arterial endovascular procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed including all consecutive patients who underwent a mesenteric arterial procedure in a tertiary referral center between May 2012 and February 2018. Exclusion criteria were absence of data and lost to follow-up within 24 hours after the procedure. During the study period, 103 patients underwent 148 mesenteric arterial procedures (TBA, n = 52; TFA, n = 39; TRA, n = 57). Mean patient age was 64.3 years ± 13.3, and 91 patients (62%) were women. Primary outcomes were vascular access specified technical success rate and access site complication rate, as reported in hospital records.

RESULTS

Technical success rate specified for the vascular access technique did not differ between the 3 approaches (TBA 96%, TFA 87%, TRA 91%; TRA vs TBA, P = .295; TBA vs TFA, P = .112; TRA vs TFA, P = .524), and overall access site complication rate was not different between the 3 approaches (TBA 42%, TFA 23%, TRA 35%; TRA vs TBA, P = .439; TBA vs TFA, P = .055; TRA vs TFA, P = .208). However, more major access site complications were reported for TBA than for TRA or TFA (TBA 17%, TFA 3%, TRA 2%; TRA vs TBA, P = .005; TBA vs TFA, P = .026; TRA vs TFA, P = .785).

CONCLUSIONS

TRA is a safe and feasible approach for mesenteric arterial procedures comparable to TFA, but with a significantly lower major access site complication rate than TBA.