Systematic review and cost-benefit analysis of radial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention

Distal Versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization: 1-Year Outcomes

Proximal radial artery (PRA) access for cardiac catheterization is safe but can jeopardize subsequent use of the artery because of occlusion. Distal radial artery (DRA) access in the anatomical snuffbox preserves the RA but safety and potential detrimental effects on hand function are unknown. We aimed to assess hand function and complications after DRA and PRA. In this single-center trial, 300 patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through DRA or PRA. The primary end point of change in hand function from baseline to 1 year was a composite of the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, hand grip test, and thumb-forefinger pinch test. The secondary end points included access feasibility and complications. Of 216 patients with 1-year completed follow-up, 112 were randomly allocated to DRA and 104 to PRA, with balanced demographics and procedural characteristics. Both groups had similar access site bleeding rates (DRA 0% vs PRA 1.4%, p = 0.25). Radial artery occlusion occurred in 1 PRA patient versus 2 in DRA. There was no significant difference in change of hand function, median (interquartile range) hand grip (DRA 0.7 [-3 to 4.5] vs PRA 1.3 [-2 to 4.3] kg, p = 0.57), pinch grip (DRA -0.1 [-1.1 to 1] vs PRA -0.3 [-1 to 0.7] kg, p = 0.66), and Quick DASH (DRA 0 [-6.6 to 2.3] vs PRA 0 [-4.6 to 2.9] points, p = 0.58). The composite of hand function was comparable between PRA and DRA. In conclusion, DRA is a safe strategy for cardiac catheterization, with a low complication rate. Compared with PRA, there is no increased risk of hand dysfunction or radial artery occlusion at 1 year.

Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for Management of Chronic Subdural Hematoma

Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a prevalent medical condition with potentially severe consequences if left untreated. While surgical removal has traditionally been the standard approach for treatment, middle meningeal artery (MMA) embolization has emerged as a promising minimally invasive alternative to reduce recurrences. This comprehensive review provides the general radiology community with an overview of MMA embolization as a therapeutic option for managing CSDH. The authors base their insights on existing evidence and their institutional experience. This overview encompasses the pathophysiology of CSDH as well as the potential advantages and limitations, safety profile, and potential complications of MMA embolization as compared with surgical treatment. The imaging findings seen before and after MMA, as well as insights into the procedural techniques used at the authors' institution, are described. On the basis of reports in the current literature, MMA embolization appears to be a safe and effective therapeutic option for managing CSDH, especially in patients who are unsuitable for surgery or at risk for recurrence. Nonetheless, further research is needed to validate these findings. Results from ongoing clinical trials hold promise for future validation and the establishment of scientific evidence. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material. See the invited commentary by Chatterjee in this issue.

Routine preprocedural ultrasound in palpation versus ultrasound guided radial access for cardiac catheterization

BACKGROUND

The radial first approach in cardiac catheterization is preferred for its benefits in patient comfort and recovery time. Yet, challenges persist due to characteristics like small, deep, calcified, and mobile radial arteries. Utilizing ultrasound before and during procedures can improve success rates. However, the adoption of its use is still limited and subject to debate.

AIM

To utilize routine preprocedural ultrasound (US) and compare US guided with palpation guided radial access, focusing on operator efficiency and outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consenting adult patients undergoing elective radial cardiac catheterization were divided into palpation and US groups. Routine preprocedural assessment of radial artery characteristics was performed using handheld US. Baseline data, US findings, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes were compared in 182 participants (91 in each group). US guided radial access had significantly higher first pass success rates (76.92% vs. 49.45%, p 0.0001), fewer number of attempts (1.46 ± 1 vs. 1.99 ± 1.46, p 0.004), and shorter amount of time (93.62 ± 44.04 vs. 120.44 ± 67.1, p 0.002) compared with palpation guidance. The palpation group had significantly higher incidence of spasm (15.38% vs. 3.3%, p 0.0052). Subgroup analysis indicated consistent benefits of US guidance, especially in calcified radial arteries.

CONCLUSION

This prospective, nonrandomized, single-center study demonstrated that real-time procedural US improved the operator's time and effort and enhanced patient comfort compared with palpation. US guidance use was particularly favorable in the presence of calcifications observed on baseline preoperative US.

TRUST Technique for Neurointervention: A Promising Alternative for Complex Cases

BACKGROUND

Neurointervention via Transradial Access (TRA) is becoming increasingly popular as experience with this technique increases. However, approximately 8.6-10.3% of complex TRA cases are converted to femoral access due to a lack of support or radial artery spasm. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the TRUST (trans-radial coaxial catheter technique using a short sheath, Simmons catheter, and Tethys intermediate catheter) technique in interventional procedures via TRA.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective analysis of 16 patients admitted to our institute between January 2023 to May 2023 to undergo endovascular interventions with the TRUST technique via the TRA.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study population was 63.8 years, and 62.5% were male (10/16). The most common procedure was intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (93.75%, 15/16). All procedures were performed successfully, and the most common procedures in our cohort were ballooning (50.0%, 8/16), stenting (18.75%, 3/16), and both procedures combined (31.25%, 1/16). All procedures were performed using the TRA, and the distal and proximal radial arteries were used for access in 31.35% (5/16) and 68.75% (11/16) of the cases, respectively. Technical success was achieved in all patients and most cases demonstrated mTICI ≥2b recanalization (93.75%, 15/16). In this case, no major access-site complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

The TRUST technique is technically safe and feasible and had a high technical success rate and low complication rate in our study. These results demonstrate that the TRUST technique is a promising alternative for patients undergoing complex neurointerventions.

Is single-catheter technique for coronary angiography an optimal tool for beginners in interventional cardiology?-randomized controlled study TRACT 2: Transradial Coronary Angiography Trial 2

Background

Transradial coronary angiography can be performed using a dual-catheter technique (DCT) or single-catheter technique (SCT). The current study aimed to compare DxTerity SCT Ultra and the Trapease curve SCT catheters with DCT catheters in procedures performed by young, less experienced, interventional cardiologists.

Methods

For this prospective, single-blinded, randomized study 107 were enrolled and assigned to 1 of 3 groups. They underwent planned coronary angiography at the Second Department of Cardiology Jagiellonian University in Kraków. In groups 1 (n=37) and 2 (n=35), DxTerity SCT Ultra catheters and the Trapease curve were used, respectively. In control group 3 (n=35), standard DCT Judkins catheters were applied. One patient was excluded from group 2, bringing the total number of cases analysed to 106. The study endpoints comprised the percentage of optimal stability, proper ostial artery engagement, a good quality angiogram, the duration of each procedure stage, the amount of contrast and the radiation dose.

Results

The highest percentage of optimal stability was observed in group 1 for the right coronary artery (RCA): 94%, and in group 3, for the left coronary artery (LCA): 85%. The necessity to change the catheter was most common in group 2. Group 1 was characterised by a shorter total procedural time. The contrast volume was higher in group 2, while there were no differences in radiation dose.

Conclusions

SCT is at least as adequate as DCT for young cardiologists. SCT was associated with lower necessity of catheter exchange during RCA visualization. The DxTerity Ultra curve catheter allows shortening the total procedure time.

Feasibility and Safety of the Routine Distal Transradial Approach in the Anatomical Snuffbox for Coronary Procedures: The ANTARES Randomized Trial

The distal transradial approach (dTRA) through the anatomical snuffbox is hypothesized to offer greater benefits than the conventional transradial access (cTRA) for patients undergoing coronary procedures. Our goal was to assess the safety and efficacy of dTRA. Out of 465 consecutive Caucasian patients, 400 were randomized (1:1) to dTRA or cTRA in a prospective single-center trial. Clinical and ultrasound follow-ups were obtained at 24 h and 60 days post-procedure. The primary combined endpoint consisted of access crossover, access-related complications, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included clinical success endpoints (puncture success, crossover, and access time), access-site complications endpoints, and MACE at 60 days. The primary endpoint was significantly higher in the dTRA [odds ratio (OR): 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-3.86, p = 0.001]. Clinical success endpoints, namely crossover (10% vs. 3.5%, p < 0.05) and access-time [median: 140s (85-322) vs. 80s (58-127), p < 0.001], did not favor the dTRA, despite a similar success rate in radial artery puncture between the dTRA and cTRA (99.5% vs. 99%). Radial artery spasm (19% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.0001), physical discomfort during access, and transient thumb numbness after the procedure occurred more frequently with the dTRA. However, early (2.5% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.41) and mid-term (2.5% vs. 3%, p = 0.98) forearm radial artery occlusion rates were comparable between the dTRA and cTRA. Randomization to the dTRA, lower forearm radial pulse volume, higher body mass index, and lower body surface area independently predicted the primary endpoint in multivariate analysis. In the interaction effect analysis, only diabetes increased the incidence of the primary endpoint with the dTRA (OR: 18.67, 95% CI: 3.96-88.07). The dTRA was a less favorable strategy than cTRA during routine coronary procedures due to a higher incidence of arterial spasm and the necessity for access crossover. The majority of local complications following the dTRA were clinically minor complications. Individuals with diabetes were particularly susceptible to complications associated with the dTRA.

Distal Versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization: 30-Day Outcomes of the DIPRA Study

Background Proximal radial artery (pRA) access for cardiac catheterization is safe but can jeopardize subsequent use of the artery because of occlusion. Distal radial artery (dRA) access in the anatomical snuffbox preserves the radial artery, but safety and potential detrimental effects on hand function are unknown. Methods and Results In the DIPRA (Distal Versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Catheterization and Intervention) study, a single-center trial, 300 patients were randomized 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through dRA or pRA. The primary end point of change in hand function from baseline to 30 days was a composite of the QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) questionnaire, hand-grip test, and thumb forefinger pinch test. Secondary end points included access feasibility and complications; 254 of 300 patients completed follow-up at 30 days; of these, 128 were randomized to dRA and 126 to pRA with balanced demographic and procedural characteristics. Both groups had similar rates of access site bleeding (dRA 0% versus pRA 1.4%; P=0.25). Six patients with dRA failed access compared with 2 patients with pRA. Radial artery occlusion occurred in 2 pRA versus none in dRA. There were no significant differences in change in hand function, median hand-grip (dRA 0 [-3.2, 3.3] versus pRA 0.7 [-2.3, 3.3] kg; P=0.21), pinch-grip (dRA -0.3 [-1.2, 0.5] versus pRA 0 [-0.9, 0.9] kg; P=0.09), and QuickDASH (dRA 0 [-4.6, 2.3] versus pRA 0 [-4.6, 2.3] points, P=0.96). There was no significant difference in the composite of hand function between pRA and dRA. Conclusions dRA is a safe strategy for cardiac catheterization with a low complication rate. Compared with pRA, there is no increased risk of hand dysfunction at 30 days. Registration URL: https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04318990.

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.

Predicting difficult transradial approach guiding into left internal carotid artery on unruptured intracranial aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The transradial approach (TRA) is less invasive than the transfemoral approach (TFA), but the higher conversion rate represents a drawback. Among target vessels, the left internal carotid artery (ICA) is particularly difficult to deliver the guiding catheter to through TRA. The purpose of this study was thus to explore anatomical and clinical features objectively predictive of the difficulty of delivering a guiding catheter into the left ICA via TRA.

METHODS

Among 78 consecutive patients who underwent coil embolization for unruptured intracranial aneurysms through TRA in a single institution between March 1, 2021, and August 31, 2022, all 29 patients (37%) who underwent delivery of the guiding catheter into the left ICA were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and anatomical features were analyzed to assess correlations with difficulty in guiding the catheter into the left ICA.

RESULTS

Of the 29 aneurysms requiring guidance of a catheter into the left ICA, 9 aneurysms (31%) required conversion from TRA to TFA. More acute innominate-left common carotid artery (CCA) angle (P < 0.001) and older age (P = 0.015) were associated with a higher conversion rate to TFA. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that optimal cutoff values for the innominate-left CCA angle and age to distinguish between nonconversion and conversion to TFA were 16° (area under the curve [AUC], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.00) and 74 years (AUC, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96), respectively.

CONCLUSION

A more acute innominate-left CCA angle and older age appear associated with difficulty delivering the guiding catheter into the left ICA for neurointervention through TRA.

Radial arterial access is a safe alternative to brachial artery and femoral artery access for endovascular lower extremity peripheral arterial disease

OBJECTIVE

Radial artery access is a well-described technique that has proven to be safe and efficacious in percutaneous cardiac intervention. This technique has been used with increased frequency in the treatment of lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (LE-PAD); however, the overall safety has not yet been well described in the vascular surgery literature. We sought to evaluate the safety of this technique compared with retrograde femoral artery access and brachial artery access (BA) in the treatment of PAD.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative database was used to identify all patients who underwent single site percutaneous access (retrograde femoral access [FA], BA, radial access [RA]) for treatment of LE-PAD from September 2016 through September 2019. Patients who underwent multiple access sites for intervention were excluded. Primary outcome was significant access site complications (ASCs), defined as those requiring treatment (blood transfusion, interventional treatment, or surgical treatment). Minor ASCs were also reported.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 61,203 patients (270 RA, 1210 BA, and 59,723 FA) with an average age of 68 years and who were 59.6% male. The RA and BA groups had higher rates of prior endarterectomy or bypass compared with the FA group (66.7% RA; 86.0% BA; 50.2% FA; P < .001). RA was more often used for single-segment treatments (82% vs 74% [P < .020] and more aortoiliac arterial segments (59.6% vs 21.0% [P < .001]). ASC occurred in 1329 patients (2.7%), including minor ASC (996 [1.6%]) and significant ASC (333 [0.54%]). Significant ASC were less common after FA and RA compared with BA (RA, 1 [0.37%]; FA, 307 [0.51%]; BA, 25 [2.1%]; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, BA was the strongest predictor of significant ASC (odds ratio, 2.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.73-4.36; P < .001). Significant ASC was no different after RA compared with FA (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-4.33; P = .616). Other factors independently associated with significant ASC were sex, age, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dialysis, and closure device use.

CONCLUSIONS

RA as the primary access vessel for endovascular treatment of LE-PAD is safe when compared with other traditional access sites. When FA is not possible or desirable, the radial approach may provide suitable access to treatment with a better safety profile than BA.

Ultrasound-guided distal transradial access for cardiac catheterization: Technical notes for the interventionalist

Over the latest years, the use of distal radial access (dTRA), also called "snuffbox," has become more and more popular for cardiac catheterization. Indeed, dTRA has several advantages compared to the traditional proximal radial approach, such as a lower risk of hand ischemia, radial artery occlusion (RAO) and faster post-procedural hemostasis. However, due to the presence of different muscular-skeletal structures, as well as to the small diameter of the distal radial artery (dRA), an ultrasound-guided cannulation would be preferred since a blind puncture increases the risk of tendon damage and/or the irritation of the underlying periosteum. The present article is aimed to provide the key tips for performing US-guided access using the dRA in patients undergoing percutaneous cardiac procedures.

Early exploration of the economic impact of transradial access (TRA) versus transfemoral access (TFA) for neurovascular procedures in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Transfemoral access (TFA) is the primary access approach for neurointerventional procedures. Transradial access (TRA) is established in cardiology due to its lower complications, yet, it is at its early stages in neuroprocedures. This study performs an early exploration of the economic impact associated with the introduction of TRA in diagnostic and therapeutic neuroprocedures from the Spanish NHS perspective.

METHODS

An economic model was developed to estimate the cost and clinical implications of using TRA compared to TFA. Costs considered access-related, complications and recovery time costs obtained from local databases and experts' inputs. Clinical inputs were sourced from the literature. A panel of eight experts from different Spanish hospitals, validated or adjusted the values based on local experience. Hypothetical cohorts of 10,000 and 1000 patients were considered for diagnostic and therapeutic neuroprocedures respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

TRA in diagnostic procedures was associated with lower costs with savings ranging between €486 and €157 depending on the TFA recovery time considered. TRA is estimated to lead to 158 fewer access-site complications. In therapeutic procedures, TRA resulted in 76.4 fewer complications and was estimated to be cost-neutral with an incremental cost of €21.56 per patient despite recovery times were not included for this group. Variation of the parameters in the sensitivity analysis did not change the direction of the results.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical data was obtained from literature validated by experts therefore results generalizability is limited. In therapeutic neuroprocedures, there is an experience imbalance between approaches and recovery times were not included hence the total impact is not fully captured.

CONCLUSIONS

The early economic model suggests that implementing TRA is associated with reduced costs and complications in diagnostic procedures. In therapeutic procedures, TRA lead to fewer complications and it is estimated to be cost-neutral, however its full potential still needs to be quantified.

Cost Comparison: Evaluating Transfemoral and Transradial Access for Diagnostic Cerebral Angiography

BACKGROUND

Modern medicine necessitates the delivery of increasingly complex health care while minimizing cost. Transradial access (TRA) for neuroendovascular procedures is becoming more common as accumulating data demonstrate fewer complications, improved patient satisfaction, and high rates of treatment success compared with the transfemoral access (TFA) approach; however, disparities in cost between these approaches remain unclear. We compared supply and equipment costs between TRA and TFA for diagnostic cerebral angiography and evaluate the specific items that account for these differences.

METHODS

We reviewed all adult patients who underwent diagnostic cerebral angiography from July 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. Data related to patient demographics, vascular access site, catheters used, cost of catheters, arterial access sheath use, cost of sheaths, closure devices used, and cost of closure devices were collected.

RESULTS

The transradial approach resulted in higher price of radial access sheath; however, the overall cost of closure devices was much lower in TRA group than in the TFA cohort. There was no significant difference in the cost of catheters. Overall, the total supply costs for TRA cerebral angiography were significantly lower than those of TFA cerebral angiography. The relative materials cost difference of using TRA was 20.9%.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first itemized materials cost analysis of TRA versus TFA cerebral angiography. TRA necessitates the use of a more expensive access sheath device; however, this cost is offset by the increased cost of devices used for femoral arteriotomy closure. Overall, the supply and equipment costs were significantly lower for TRA than TFA.

Transradial versus transfemoral arterial access in the uterine artery embolization of fibroids

Purpose

Transradial arterial access has become more popular in body interventional procedures but has not been ubiquitously adapted. This retrospective study assesses the efficacy of this approach in uterine artery embolization. Aim of the study was to compare transradial to transfemoral arterial access in patients undergoing uterine artery embolization for the treatment of fibroids.

Material and methods

A total of 172 patients underwent uterine artery embolization procedures at our institute from October 2014 to June 2020. Of these, 76 patients had their operations performed via transfemoral access while 96 underwent transradial access. The peak radiation dose, fluoroscopy time, procedure time, total contrast volume, and equipment cost for each procedure were all reviewed to evaluate for statistical differences between the 2 groups.

Results

All cases were technically successful without major complications. The average peak skin dose was 2281 mGy,with no statistical difference between the transradial or transfemoral cohorts. Average fluoroscopy time was 25 minutes, also with no statistical difference between the subsets. Mean procedure time was 100 min, and mean contrast volume usage was 138 mL with no statistical differences. Similarly, the average equipment cost was $2204, with no significant differences found between transradial and transfemoral access.

Conclusions

With respect to many pertinent radiation parameters, transradial access was evaluated as being an equally efficacious alternative to transfemoral access in uterine artery embolization procedures. The results of this study suggest that transradial access should be considered more often, whenever viable, as an option in the uterine artery embolization treatment of fibroids.

Rate of periprocedural stroke in diagnostic cerebral angiograms comparing transradial versus transfemoral access

PURPOSE

Transradial access for neurointerventional procedures has increased in popularity over the past few years due to data from extrapolated interventional cardiology studies, patient preference, and early reports of feasibility using this approach. Our aim was to evaluate the incidence of periprocedural stroke in patients undergoing transradial versus transfemoral access for diagnostic cerebral angiograms.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our neurointerventional database and identified all patients who underwent a diagnostic angiogram between May 2019 and July 2021. Patients were further divided into transradial versus transfemoral access. In patients with postprocedural stroke, symptoms and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score were recorded. Pertinent laboratory values and procedural data was reviewed, including COVID status, platelet count, International normalized ratio (INR), Glomerular filtration rate (GFR), vessels catheterized, amount of contrast used, and fluoroscopy time. Imaging work-up for stroke symptoms was reviewed, if available.

RESULTS

Thousand two-hundred thirty eight diagnostic cerebral angiograms with 656 patients (53%) undergoing transradial access. Stroke symptoms after angiogram were only observed in the transradial group (5 patients; 0.4% total and 0.8% among radial access cases, respectively). Symptoms included word finding difficulty, paresthesia, or weakness. Three patients underwent cross-sectional imaging, computed tomography was negative in all three patients. Magnetic resonance imaging showed small, scattered infarcts in two patients. All symptoms resolved without additional hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, using transradial access for diagnostic cerebral angiograms was associated with a low but not negligible incidence of periprocedural strokes. Patient anatomy should be evaluated prior to selection of vascular access. Patients should be made aware of a slightly higher periprocedural stroke risk with transradial access.

Use of reverse angle guide catheter with trans-radial approach in patients undergoing middle meningeal artery embolization

Background

Trans-radial access (TRA) for MMA embolization has grown due to lower access site complications and greater patient satisfaction. Here, we describe the feasibility of utilizing a 6F Envoy Simmons 2 (6F-SIM2) as a guide catheter with TRA and compare outcomes with trans-femoral approach (TFA) in a single center case series.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent MMA embolization for management of chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH). TRA was performed by utilizing a combination of 6F 90cm Envoy (Codman &amp; Shurtleff, Inc., Rayham, MA) Simmons 2 guide catheter and 5F 125cm Sofia (Microvention, Aliso Viejo, CA) intermediate catheter. Outcomes measured are Modified Rankin Score (mRS) at 90 days, inpatient mortality, post-embolization recurrence, fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure.

Results

A total of 71 patients underwent 97 MMA embolization overall with 65 (67%) in trans-femoral access group, 11 (11.3%) in trans-radial access without use of Simmons 2 Guide catheter group and 21 (21.6%) in trans-radial access with use of Simmons 2 Guide catheter group. There were no direct access-related complications in either group. One patient had thromboembolic stroke in trans-femoral group. There was no difference in average procedure-related total fluro time or radiation dose among all three groups.

Conclusion

Trans-radial approach using 6F-SIM2 guide catheter coupled with 5F Sofia intermediate catheter is safe and effective. It provides an alternative approach to access distal branches of bilateral anterior circulation in elderly patients with difficult anatomy undergoing MMA embolization.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with less bleeding and mortality than transfemoral access (TFA). However, patients in cardiogenic shock (CS) are more often treated via TFA. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of TRA vs. TFA in CS.

METHODS

Systematic review was performed querying PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov for studies comparing TRA to TFA in PCI for CS. Outcomes included in-hospital, 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, major and access site bleeding, TIMI3 (thrombolytics in myocardial infarction) flow, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects models.

RESULTS

Six prospective and eight retrospective studies (TRA, n = 8032; TFA, n = 23 031) were identified. TRA was associated with lower in-hospital (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.66, P < 0.0001), 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, as well as less in-hospital major (RR 0.41, 0.31-0.56, P < 0.001) and access site bleeding (RR 0.42, 0.23-0.77, P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences in post-PCI coronary flow grade, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume between TRA vs. TFA.

CONCLUSIONS

In PCI for STEMI with CS, TRA is associated with significantly lower mortality and bleeding complications than TFA while achieving similar TIMI3 flow and procedural success rates.

Relation of Operator Volume and Access Site to Short-Term Mortality in Radial Versus Femoral Access for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The relation between operator volume and mortality of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) procedures for ST-elevation myocardial infarction has not been studied comprehensively. This study included patients who underwent PPCI between 2010 and 2017 in all nonfederal hospitals approved to perform PCI in New York State. We compared risk-adjusted in-hospital/30-day mortality for radial access (RA) and femoral access (FA) and the relation between risk-adjusted mortality and procedure volume for each access site. In 44,540 patients in the study period, the use of RA rose from 8% in 2,010% to 43% in 2017 (p <0.0001). There was no significant change in PPCI risk-adjusted mortality during the period (p=0.27 for trend). RA was associated with lower mortality when imposing operator exclusion criteria used in recent trials. There was a significant operator inverse volume-mortality relation for FA procedures but not for RA procedures. FA procedures performed by lower volume FA operators (lowest quartile) were associated with higher risk-adjusted mortality compared with RA procedures (3.71% vs 3.06%, p = 0.01) or compared with FA procedures performed by higher volume FA operators (3.71% vs 3.16%, p = 0.01). In conclusion, in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction referred for primary PCI in New York State, there was a significant uptake in the use of RA along with relatively constant in-hospital/30-day mortality. There was a significant inverse operator volume-mortality relation for FA procedures accompanied by higher mortality for FA procedures performed by low volume FA operators than for all other primary PCI procedures. In conclusion, this information underscores the need for operators to remain vigilant in maintaining FA skills and monitoring FA outcomes.

Transradial versus transfemoral arterial access in DEB-TACE for hepatocellular carcinoma

Objectives

Transradial access has become increasingly popular in body interventional procedures but has not been ubiquitously adapted. This retrospective study compares the efficacy of this approach versus transfemoral access in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who underwent drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE).

Materials and Methods

A total of 130 HCC patients underwent 146 DEB-TACE procedures within our institution from June 2015 to May 2020. About 90 and 56 procedures were logged for the transradial and transfemoral cohorts, respectively. Peak skin dose, fluoroscopy time, administered contrast volume, total procedure time, and equipment cost data for each procedure were reviewed to evaluate for statistical differences between the two groups.

Results

All 146 cases were technically successful without major complications or access failures in either group. No statistical differences were present between the two access groups in regards to peak skin dose or fluoroscopy time. Transradial access recorded a significantly higher contrast volume (P < 0.05), and a significantly longer procedural time than transfemoral access (P < 0.01). However, transradial access also displayed a significantly lower procedural equipment cost (P < 0.01) between the two groups.

Conclusion

Transradial DEB-TACE has similar trends to transfemoral DEB-TACE in several pertinent radiation parameters and is also significantly more cost-efficacious. The results of this investigation suggest the consideration of transradial access whenever viable as an alternative to transfemoral access in the DEB-TACE treatment of HCC patients.

Feasibility and Safety of Flow Diversion in the Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms via Transradial Approach: A Single-Arm Meta Analysis

Background

While studies have confirmed that flow diversion (FD) can treat intracranial aneurysms via transradial approach (TRA), it remains unclear whether their treatment ultimately impacts safety and feasibility. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the safety and feasibility after FD treatment of intracranial aneurysms via TRA.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically reviewed. The primary outcomes were the success rate and the access-related complications of deploying FD via TRA. Meta-analysis was performed using a random or fixed effect model based on heterogeneity. And the publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42021244448.

Results

Data from 8 studies met inclusion criteria (250 non-duplicated patients). The success rate was 93% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86–0.98; I² = 61.05%; p = 0.01). The access-related complications rate was 1% (95% CI 0–0.03; I² = 0.00%; p < 0.01). The mainly access-related complications included radial artery spasm (85.7%) and radial artery occlusion (14.3%). The TRA convert to transfemoral approach (TFA) was 7% (95% CI 0.02–0.14; I² = 61.05%; p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Although TFA is still the main access for FD in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, the TRA also has a higher success rate and lower access-related complications rate. With the improvement of future experience and equipment, the TRA may become the main access for FD which has more advantages. Future studies should design prospective, multicenter randomized controlled studies for long-term follow-up.

The Design and Feasibility of the: Radial Artery Puncture Hemostasis Evaluation – RAPHE Study, a Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Clinical Trial

Introduction and Aim

Radial artery approach angiography is the current gold standard for coronary status diagnostics and eventual percutaneous revascularization (PCI). Currently, application of adequate, patent hemostasis based physical torniquets are used for puncture site control, to avoid bleeding, radial artery occlusion and damage (RAO and RAD). The Radial Artery Puncture Hemostasis Evaluation (RAPHE) is a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial designed to investigate new, simplified techniques of radial artery hemostasis utilizing physical compression free methods.

Methods and Results

The RAPHE study has been designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two non-compression based radial artery hemostasis methods: a 100% chitosan bioactive hemostatic dressing and a purpose-built radial potassium-ferrate based topical hemostasis disc. These devices will be investigated in a standalone configuration. Control group is a standard pneumatic airbladder-based compression device. A total of 600 patients will be enrolled in a three-way randomization (1:1:1) with two study and one control groups. Safety and efficacy endpoints are RAO, puncture site hematoma formation and RAD respectively, consisting of dissection, (pseudo)aneurism and/or fistula formation, measured post-procedure and at sixty days.

Conclusion

The results from this trial will provide valuable information on new, simplified methods of radial artery hemostasis options and possibly simplify post-puncture management of patients.

Clinical Trial Registration

[www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT04857385].

Transradial versus Transfemoral Approaches in Diagnostic and Therapeutic Neuroendovascular Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Current Literature

BACKGROUND

The adoption of the transradial approach (TRA) has been increasing in popularity as a primary method to conduct both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. As this technique gains broader acceptance and use within the neuroendovascular community, comparing its complication profile with a better-established alternative technique, the transfemoral approach (TFA), becomes more important. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of TRA compared with TFA in patients undergoing diagnostic, therapeutic, and combined neuroendovascular procedures.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A literature search of PubMed and other databases was conducted for studies from all available dates. To compare TRA and TFA, we performed an indirect meta-analysis between studies that mentioned the complications of the procedures.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 532 studies, of which 108 met full inclusion criteria. A total of 54,083 patients (9137 undergoing TRA and 44,946 undergoing TFA) were included. Access site complication rate was lower in TRA (1.62%) compared with TFA (3.31%) (P < 0.01). Neurological complication rate was lower in TRA (1.64%) compared with TFA (3.82%) (P = 0.02 and P < 0.01, respectively). Vascular spasm rate was higher in TRA (3.65%) compared with TFA (0.88%) (P < 0.01). Wound infection complication rate was higher in TRA (0.32%) compared with TFA (0.2%) (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing TFA are significantly more likely to experience access site complications and neurological complications compared with patients undergoing TRA. Patients undergoing TRA are more likely to experience complications such as wound infections and vascular spasm.

Transradial versus transfemoral arterial access in Yttrium-90 microspheres radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Transradial access has become more popular in body intervention procedures but has not been ubiquitously adapted. This study assesses the efficacy of this approach in Yttrium-90 labeled microspheres radioembolization. To compare transradial to transfemoral access in hepatocellular carcinoma patients who underwent Yttrium-90 radioembolization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 244 hepatocellular carcinoma patients underwent 337 radioembolization procedures at our institute from May 2014 to May 2020. The transradial access-group included 188 patients (252 procedures) while the transfemoral access group had 63 patients (85 procedures). The recovery time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, peak radiation dose, and equipment cost for each procedure were all reviewed to evaluate for statistical differences between the two groups.

RESULTS

The transradial cohort recorded a significantly shorter (P < 0.01) mean recovery time (from the end of the procedure to discharge) and had a significantly shorter (P < 0.05) use of contrast volume versus the transfemoral group. In addition, the radiation dose and fluoroscopy time were lower in the transradial subset, although not statistically different. Furthermore, the overall cost for procedural equipment was significantly less (P < 0.01) in the transradial cohort than in the transfemoral. No major complications were reported in the transradial group, while one pseudoaneurysm was noted in the transfemoral group.

CONCLUSION

With respect to many pertinent parameters, transradial access was evaluated as being more advantageous than transfemoral access. The results of this study suggest that transradial access should be considered more often, whenever feasible, as an option in the Yttrium-90 treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation can be safely performed without invasive hemodynamic monitoring: A multi-center study

BACKGROUND

Arterial invasive monitoring is the most common method in the USA for hemodynamic monitoring during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Although studies have shown favorable comparison between non-invasive and invasive hemodynamic monitoring (IHM) in non-cardiac procedures under general anesthesia, limited data is available for complex cardiac procedures such as AF ablation in the USA. With progressive improvement in AF ablation procedural safety, particularly with routine use of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) to monitor for pericardial effusion, it is unclear if invasive hemodynamic monitoring provides any advantage over non-invasive methods. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine whether noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring is non-inferior to invasive hemodynamic monitoring during AF ablation under general anesthesia in patients without major cardiac structural abnormality.

METHODS

A multi-center retrospective data of AF ablation from July 2019 to December 2020 was extracted. A total of three hundred and sixty-two patients (362) were included, which were divided into group A (non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring) and group B (invasive hemodynamic monitoring). The primary outcome was to compare procedural safety between the two groups.

RESULTS

Out of 362 patients, 184 (51%) received non-invasive and 178 (49%) received invasive hemodynamic monitoring with similar baseline characteristics. There was no significant difference between the two groups in complication rates (groin hematoma, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade). Mean procedure time was longer in group B with 3.35% arterial site discomfort. Urgent arterial access was required in only 1 patient in group A.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective multicenter study strongly suggests that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation under general anesthesia can be safely performed with noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring without requiring arterial access, with potential benefit in procedural duration and cost.

Transradial versus trans-femoral access site in high-speed rotational atherectomy in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Radial artery is the preferred access site in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, limited data exist regarding utilization pattern, safety, and long-term efficacy of transradial artery access (TRA) PCI in heavily calcified lesions using high-speed rotational atherectomy (HSRA).

METHODS

All patients who underwent HSRA-PCI in Sweden between 2005 and 2016 were included. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE, including death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target vessel revascularisation (TVR)), in-hospital bleeding and restenosis. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for the non-randomized access site selection.

RESULTS

We included 1479 patients of whom 649 had TRA and 782 transfemoral artery access (TFA) HSRA-PCI. The rate of TRA increased significantly by 18% per year but remained lower in HSRA-PCI (60%) than in the overall PCI population (85%) in 2016. TRA was associated with comparable angiographic success but significantly lower risk for major (adjusted OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.05-0.47) or any in-hospital bleeding (adjusted OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.13-0.78). At one year, the adjusted risk for MACE (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.67-1.13) and its individual components did not differ between TRA and TFA patients. The risk for restenosis did not significantly differ between TRA and TFA HSRA-PCI treated lesions (adjusted HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.46-1.81).

CONCLUSION

HSRA-PCI by TRA was associated with significantly lower risk for in-hospital bleeding and equivalent long-term efficacy when compared with TFA. Our data support the feasibility and superior safety profile of TRA in HSRA-PCI.

Is This the Prime Time for Transradial Access Left Ventricular Endomyocardial Biopsy?

Left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is an essential tool in the management of myocarditis and is conventionally performed via transfemoral access (TFA). Transradial access EMB (TRA-EMB) is a novel alternative and the authors sought to determine its safety and feasibility by conducting a systematic review of the literature. Medline was searched in 2020, and cohort demographics, procedural details and complications were extracted from selected studies. Four observational studies with a combined total of 496 procedures were included. TRA-EMB was most frequently performed with a sheathless MP1 guide catheter via the right radial artery. The most common complication was pericardial effusion (up to 11% in one study), but pericardial drainage for tamponade was rare (one reported case). Death and mitral valve damage have not been reported. TRA-EMB was successful in obtaining samples in 99% of reported procedures. The authors concluded that TRA-EMB is a safe and feasible alternative to TFA-EMB and the most common complication is uncomplicated pericardial effusion.

Cost analysis of a coaching intervention to increase use of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The transradial approach (TRA) to cardiac catheterization is safer than the traditional transfemoral approach (TFA), with similar clinical effectiveness. However, adoption of TRA remains low, representing less than 50% of catheterization procedures in 2015. Peer coaching is one approach to facilitate implementation; however, the costs of this strategy for cardiac procedures such as TRA are unclear.

METHODS

We conducted an activity-based costing analysis (ABC) of a multi-center, hybrid type III implementation trial of a coaching intervention designed to increase the use of TRA. We identified the key activities of the intervention and determined the personnel, resources, and time needed to complete each activity. The personnel cost per hour and the activity duration were then used to estimate the cost of each activity and the total variable cost of the implementation. Fixed costs related to designing and running the implementation were calculated separately. All costs are reported in 2019 constant US dollars.

RESULTS

The total cost of the coaching intervention implementation was $374,863. Of the total cost, $367,752 were variable costs due to travel, preparatory work, in-person coaching, post-intervention evaluation, and administrative time. We estimated fixed costs of $7112. The mean marginal cost of implementing the intervention at only one additional medical center was $52,536.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide granular cost estimates of a conceptually rooted implementation strategy designed to increase the uptake of TRA for cardiac catheterization. We estimate that implementation costs stemming from the coaching approach would be offset after the conversion of approximately 409 to 1363 catheterizations from TFA to TRA. Our estimates provide benchmarks of the expected costs of implementing evidence-based, but expertise-intensive, cardiac procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN66341299 . Registered 7 July 2020-retrospectively registered.

Safety and Efficacy of Four Different Diagnostic Catheter Curves Dedicated to One-Catheter Technique of Transradial Coronaro-Angiography-Prospective, Randomized Pilot Study. TRACT 1: Trans RAdial CoronaryAngiography Trial 1

Transradial coronaro-angiography (TRA) can be performed with one catheter. We investigate the efficacy of four different DxTerity catheter curves dedicated to the single-catheter technique and compare this method to the standard two-catheter approach. For this prospective, single-blinded, randomized pilot study, we enrolled 100 patients. In groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, the DxTerity catheters Trapease, Ultra, Transformer and Tracker Curve, respectively, were used. In group 5 (control), standard Judkins catheters were used. The study endpoints were the percentage of optimal stability, proper ostial artery engagement and a good quality angiogram, the duration of each procedure stage, the amount of contrast, and the radiation dose. The highest rate of optimal stability was observed in groups 2 (90%) and 5 (95%). Suboptimal results with at least one episode of catheter fallout from the ostium were most frequent in group 1 (45%). The necessity of using another catheter was observed most frequently in group 4. The analysis of time frames directly depending on the catheter type revealed that the shortest time for catheter introduction and for searching coronary ostia was achieved in group 2 (Ultra). There were no differences in contrast volume and radiation dose between groups. DxTerity catheters are suitable tools to perform TRA coronary angiography. The Ultra Curve catheter demonstrated an advantage over other catheters in terms of its ostial stability rate and procedural time.

Pretreatment With P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients With Chronic Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report From the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry

BACKGROUND

In patients with chronic coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the optimal timing of P2Y12 inhibitors' administration is uncertain. We compared pretreatment versus treatment in the catheterization laboratory (In-Cathlab) in a real-world population.

METHODS

In Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry, all patients with chronic coronary syndrome undergoing coronary angiography and ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention, between 2006 and 2017 were identified. Pretreatment was defined as P2Y12 inhibitor administration before coronary angiography, outside the catheterization laboratory. Outcomes were net adverse clinical events including death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or bleeding within 30 days of the index procedure and in-hospital bleeding.

RESULTS

We included 26 814 patients, 8237 in the In-Cathlab, and 18 577 in the pretreatment group. In-Cathlab treatment compared with pretreatment was associated with lower risk for net adverse clinical event (4.2 versus 5.1%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.79 [0.63-0.99]), bleeding (2.3 versus 2.6%, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76 [0.57-1.01]). and in-hospital bleeding (1.9 versus 2.1%, adjusted odds ratio, 0.70 [0.51-0.96]). The risk for death, myocardial infarction, or stroke did not significantly differ between the groups. Among the In-Cathlab treated patients, 41% received ticagrelor or prasugrel and 59% clopidogrel. Treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel was associated with higher risk for net adverse clinical events (5.4% versus 3.4%, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.66 [1.12-2.48]), bleeding (3.4 versus 1.6%, adjusted hazard ratio, 2.14 [1.34-3.42]), and in-hospital bleeding (2.9 versus 1.2%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.24 [1.29-3.90]) but similar risk for death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, compared with clopidogrel.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with chronic coronary syndrome undergoing coronary angiography and ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention, pretreatment with P2Y12 inhibitors, before arrival to the catheterization laboratory, was not associated with improved clinical outcomes but was associated with increased risk for bleeding. Our data support clopidogrel administration in the catheterization laboratory as the standard of care. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

Wrist Extension Does Not Change the Position of the Radial Artery: Cadaveric Study With Application to Arterial Line Placement, and Transradial Neurointerventional Procedures

BACKGROUND

The radial artery is gaining popularity as a vascular access site for neurointerventional procedures. However, recent analyses of wrist position and radial artery anatomy has suggested that the extended position of the wrist is not always necessary. Therefore, the following cadaveric study was performed to verify these findings.

METHODS

Twenty adult cadaveric upper limbs underwent dissection of the radial artery. The radial artery was exposed but left in its anatomical position. With the hand supinated, the wrist was extended to 45 degrees and 90 degrees. Observations were then made of any movement of the artery during these ranges of motion. Next, a tension gauge was attached to the radial artery and any tension on the artery measured during the above noted ranges of motion.

RESULTS

During extension of the wrist, none of the radial artery specimens was found to move in any direction. Moreover, an average of only 0.28 N of tension on the artery was found with wrist extension up to 90 degrees. Our cadaveric study found that, contrary to popular belief, extension of the wrist during cannulation of the radial artery does not change the position of the artery nor does it significantly alter the tension on the artery.

CONCLUSIONS

These data support several recent clinical studies.

Lessons Learned After 760 Neurointerventions via the Upper Extremity Vasculature: Pearls and Pitfalls

BACKGROUND

The radial approach has been gaining more widespread use by neurointerventionalists fueled by data from the cardiology literature showing better safety and overall reduced morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

To present our institution's experience with the radial approach for neuroendovascular interventions in 614 consecutive patients who underwent a cumulative of 760 procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed and identified neuroendovascular procedures performed via the upper extremity vasculature access site.

RESULTS

Amongst 760 procedures, 34.2% (260) were therapeutic, and 65.7% (500) were nontherapeutic angiograms. Access sites were 71.5% (544) via a conventional radial artery, 27.8% (211) via a distal radial artery, 0.5% (4) via an ulnar artery, and 0.1% (1) via the brachial artery. Most of the procedures (96.9%) were performed via the right-sided (737), 2.9% (22) via the left-sided, and 0.1% (1) via a bilateral approach. Major access site complications occurred at a rate of 0.9% (7). The rate of transfemoral conversion was 4.7% (36). There was a statistically higher incidence of transfemoral conversion when repeat procedures were performed using the same access site. Also, there was no significant difference between nontherapeutic procedures performed using the right and left radial access, and conventional versus distal radial access. Procedural metrics improved after completion of 14 procedures, indicating a learning curve that should be surpassed by operators to reach optimal outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Radial artery catheterization is a safe and effective means of carrying out a wide range of neuroendovascular procedures associated with excellent clinical outcomes and an overall low rate of periprocedural complications.

Propensity-Adjusted Comparative Analysis of Radial Versus Femoral Access for Neurointerventional Treatments

BACKGROUND

Transradial artery (TRA) catheterization for neuroendovascular procedures is associated with a lower risk of complications than transfemoral artery (TFA) procedures. However, the majority of literature on TRA access pertains to diagnostic procedures rather than interventional treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To compare TRA and TFA approaches for cerebrovascular interventions.

METHODS

All patients with an endovascular intervention performed at a single center from October 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were grouped into 2 cohorts on the basis of whether TRA or TFA access was used. Outcomes included complications, fluoroscopy times, and total contrast administered.

RESULTS

A total 579 interventional treatments were performed during the 15-mo study period. TFA procedures (n = 417) were associated with a significantly higher complication rate than TRA (n = 162) procedures (43 cases [10%] vs 5 cases [3%]; P = .008). After excluding patients who underwent thrombectomy and performing a propensity adjustment (including age, sex, pathology, procedure, sheath size, and catheter size), TRA catheterization was associated with decreased odds of a complication (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI 0.085-0.72; P = .01), but no significant difference in the amount of contrast administered (6.7-mL increase; 95% CI, -7.2 to 20.6; P = .34) or duration of fluoroscopy (2.1-min increase; 95% CI, -2.5 to 6.7; P = .37) compared with TFA catheterization.

CONCLUSION

Neurointerventional procedures and treatments for a variety of pathologies can be performed successfully using the TRA approach, which is associated with a lower risk of complications and no difference in fluoroscopy duration compared with the TFA approach.

Comparison of Access Site-Related Complications and Quality of Life in Patients after Invasive Cardiology Procedures According to the Use of Radial, Femoral, or Brachial Approach

The radial approach (RA) is the most common in invasive cardiology, but depending on the clinical situation, the femoral approach (FA) and brachial approach (BA) are also used. The BA is associated with the highest odds of complications so it is used mainly if a first-choice approach fails. The aim of the study was to assess clinical outcomes after invasive cardiology procedures stratified by the use of the RA, FA, and BA, with a focus on access site-related complications, quality of life (QoL), and patients' perspective. A total of 250 procedures (RA: 98; FA: 99; BA: 53) performed between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Puncture site-related complications, vascular events, patient preferences, and QoL were assessed by the analysis of medical records and telephone follow-up using a proprietary questionnaire and the modified EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. Patients from the RA group received the smallest volume of contrast during a percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) procedure (RA vs. FA vs. BA: 180 (150-240) mL vs. 200 (180-270) mL vs. 190 (100-200) mL, p = 0.045). The access site was changed most frequently in the procedures initiated from the RA (p < 0.04). Overall puncture site-related complications, especially local hematomas, occurred most commonly in the BA group (7.1, 14.1, and 24.5% for RA, FA, and BA, respectively, p = 0.01). During the index procedure, the access site was changed most frequently in procedures initiated from the RA (19.7, 8.5 and 0%, p = 0.04). The RA was indicated as an approach preferred by the patient for a hypothetical next procedure (87.9, 55.4, and 70.0% for subjects preferring the same approach out of patients who underwent a procedure by the RA, FA, and BA, respectively, p < 0.001). For the RA and FA, the prevalence of moderate or extreme access site-related problems in self-care decreased significantly (RA: p < 0.01, FA: p < 0.05) within 1 month after the index procedure (RA: 18.1, 4.2, and 1.4%; FA: 20.7, 11.1, and 9.6% periprocedurally, after 1 and 6 months, respectively). In contrast, for the BA these percentages were higher and a significant improvement (p < 0.05) was delayed until 6 months (54.6, 36.4, and 18.2% periprocedurally, after 1 and 6 months, respectively). In conclusion, compared to the BA and FA, the RA appears to be not only the safest, mainly due to the lowest risk of puncture site-related complications after coronary procedures but also represents a preferable approach from the patient's perspective. Although overall post-procedural QoL outcomes did not differ significantly according to the access site, nevertheless, the BA was associated with more frequent self-care problems whose improvement was delayed until more than one month after the index procedure.

Transradial versus transfemoral access for cardiac catheterization: a nationwide pilot study of training preferences and expertise in The United States

Background

The objective was to assess current training preferences, expertise, and comfort with transfemoral access (TFA) and transradial access (TRA) amongst cardiovascular training fellows and teaching faculty in theUnited States. As TRA continues to dominate the field of interventional cardiology, there is a concern that trainees may become less proficient with the femoral approach.

Methods

A detailed questionnaire was sent out to academic General Cardiovascular and Interventional Cardiology training programs in the United States. Responses were sought from fellows-in-training and faculty regarding preferences and practice of TFA and TRA. Answers were analyzed for significant differences between trainees and trainers.

Results

A total of 125 respondents (75 fellows-in-training and 50 faculty) completed and returned the survey. The average grade of comfort for TFA, on a scale of 0 to 10 (10 being most comfortable), was reported to be 6 by fellows-in-training and 10 by teaching faculty (p<0.001). TRA was the first preference in 95% of the fellows-in-training compared to 69% of teaching faculty (p 0.001). While 62% of fellows believed that they would receive the same level of training as their trainers by the time they graduate, only 35% of their trainers believed so (p 0.004).

Conclusion

The shift from TFA to radial first has resulted in significant concern among cardiovascular fellows-in training and the faculty regarding training in TFA. Cardiovascular training programs must be cognizant of this issue and should devise methods to assure optimal training of fellows in gaining TFA and managing femoral access-related complications.

Systematic Review of Transradial Access for Flow Diversion of Intracranial Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Transradial access is an increasingly popular route for cerebral angiography and neurointerventions. However, obstacles to wider adoption remain, especially for complex interventions typically performed with larger, multiaxial systems such as flow diversion. We sought to analyze the published evidence for transradial flow diversion of intracranial aneurysms.

METHODS

Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a literature review was performed to identify all published reports and studies of transradial flow diversion for intracranial aneurysm. The search was limited from April 2011 to February 2021. Primary outcome was successful completion of the procedure via a transradial approach. Heterogeneity was analyzed with Q and I² statistics. Secondary outcomes were transradial access-site complications and other complications.

RESULTS

In total, 11 studies involving 290 treated aneurysms were identified; 90.7% of the procedures were completed via the transradial approach. The heterogeneity between studies was high, with an I² of 56.9%. There were no transradial access-site complications. The procedural complication rate was 2.41%.

CONCLUSIONS

Transradial access has a high success rate for both anterior and posterior circulation flow-diversion embolizations. The success rate may be particularly high for posterior circulation and right anterior circulation aneurysms. It has a negligible access-site complication rate. Transradial access is a viable alternative to transfemoral access for flow diversion and should be considered as a first-line approach.

Distal versus proximal radial artery access for cardiac catheterization and intervention: Design and rationale of the DIPRA trial

BACKGROUND

Radial artery (RA) catheterization is the access of choice over femoral artery access for most interventional vascular procedures given its safety and faster patient recovery. There has been growing interest in distal radial artery (dRA) access as an alternative to the conventional proximal radial artery (pRA) access. Preserving the RA is important which serves as a potential conduit for future coronary artery bypass surgery, dialysis conduit or preserve the artery for future cardiovascular procedures. The dRA runs in close proximity to the radial nerve, which raises the concern of potential detrimental effects on hand function.

STUDY DESIGN

The Distal versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for cardiac catheterization and intervention (DIPRA) trial is a prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled, open-label, single center study evaluating the outcomes of hand function and effectiveness of dRA compared to pRA access in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. The eligible subjects will be randomized to dRA and pRA access in a (1:1) fashion. The primary end point is an evaluation of hand function at one and twelve months follow-up. Secondary end points include rates of access site hematoma, access site bleeding, other vascular access complications, arterial access success rate, and RA occlusion at one and twelve months follow up.

CONCLUSION

Effects of dRA on hand function remains unknown and it's use questionable in the presence of a widely accepted pRA. DIPRA trial is designed to determine the safety and effectiveness of dRA for diagnostic and interventional cardiovascular procedures compared to the standard of care pRA.

The high dose unfractionated heparin is related to less radial artery occlusion rates after diagnostic cardiac catheterisation: a single centre experience

BACKGROUND

Transradial approach (TRA) has increasingly become the default strategy for cardiac catheterisation. However, TRA can result in several complications; radial artery occlusion (RAO) is the most unwilling complication. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is an effective therapy in preventing RAO. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether weight-adjusted high dose UFH reduces the rate of RAO after diagnostic cardiac catheterisation compared to weight-adjusted standard dose UFH.

METHODS

A total of 1215 patients screened and after exclusion criteria, 686 consecutive patients were enrolled. 100 IU/kg UFH (high dose UFH group) and 50 IU/kg UFH (standard dose UFH group) were given the patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterisation. RAO was evaluated with vascular Doppler ultrasonography at 10 days after cardiac catheterisation.

RESULTS

Among 686 patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterisation, RAO was detected in 36 (5.2%) patients. There was no significant difference with respect to baseline characteristics and co-morbid diseases between high dose UFH group and standard dose UFH group. RAO was significantly higher in standard dose UFH group than high dose UFH group (7.9% vs. 3.0%, p = .004). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was demonstrated that age (OR: 0.958, 95% CI: 0.924-0.993, p = .019) and standard dose heparin (OR: 2.811, 95% CI: 1.347-5.866, p = .006) were independent factor for RAO.

CONCLUSIONS

High dose UFH was independently associated with a lower rate of RAO. Given that RAO nearly affects about 10% patient underwent TRA, prefer to high dose UFH may be a reasonable choice for RAO prevention.

Angiographic evaluation of radial artery injury after transradial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention

The transradial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention (TRA-PCI) has been increasingly gaining popularity in clinical practice. However, its association with risk for long-term radial artery injury has not been yet thoroughly defined. We retrospectively examined the patients undergoing radial artery angiography (RAG) after TRA-PCI to determine the incidence and risk factors of radial artery injury. The study included 558 patients undergoing follow-up radial artery angiography at 12 month after TRA-PCI. Radial artery injury occurred in 140 patients (25%) with 3 distinct morphological patterns: focal radial artery stenosis (RAS) P.7,7: in 7 patients (1%), diffuse radial artery stenosis (RAS) in 78 patients (14%), and radial artery occlusion (RAO) in 55 patients (10%). Patients with RAS/RAO were more likely to be female, had smaller height and body weight, smaller body mass index and smaller body surface area (BSA) as compared with those without RAS/RAO. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified BSA (odds ratio, 1.34 per 0.1 m² increase; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.71; p = 0.01) and a history of TRA-PCI (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-5.08; p = 0.017) as independent predisposing factors of radial artery injury. In a sub-analysis of 323 patients undergoing both pre-PCI RAG and follow-up RAG, pre-PCI radial diameter as well as BSA and a history of TRA-PCI were independently associated with radial artery injury. Long-term injury after TRA-PCI is considerably common and care should be paid for RAS/RAO, especially for those patients with lower BSA, history of TRA-PCI and small radial artery diameter.

Cost-utility analysis of an integrated genetic/epigenetic test for assessing risk for coronary heart disease

Aim: New epigenetically based methods for assessing risk for coronary heart disease may be more sensitive but are generally more costly than current methods. To understand their potential impact on healthcare spending, we conducted a cost-utility analysis. Methods: We compared costs using the new Epi + Gen CHD™ test with those of existing tests using a cohort Markov simulation model. Results: We found that use of the new test was associated with both better survival and highly competitive negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from -$42,000 to -$8000 per quality-adjusted life year for models with and without a secondary test. Conclusion: The new integrated genetic/epigenetic test will save money and lives under most real-world scenarios. Similar advantages may be seen for other epigenetic tests.

Safe and rapid radial hemostasis achieved using a novel topical hemostatic patch: Results of a first-in-human pilot study using hydrophobically modified polysaccharide-chitosan

BACKGROUND

The transradial approach (TRA) for catheter interventions decreases vascular complications and bleeding versus transfemoral approach. Reducing time to hemostasis and preventing radial artery occlusion (RAO) following TRA are important and incompletely realized aspirations.

OBJECTIVES

This first-in-human study sought to evaluate the efficacy of a novel, topically applied compound (hydrophobically modified polysaccharide-chitosan, hm-P) plus minimal required pneumatic compression, to achieve rapid radial arterial hemostasis in post-TRA procedures compared with de facto standards.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

About 50 adult patients undergoing 6 French diagnostic TRA procedures were prospectively enrolled. At procedure completion, a topical hm-P impregnated patch was placed over the dermotomy and TR Band (TRB) compression was applied to the access site. This patch was used as part of a novel rapid deflation protocol with a primary outcome of time to hemostasis. Photographic and vascular ultrasound evaluation of the radial artery was performed to evaluate the procedural site.

RESULTS

Time to hemostasis was 40.5 min (IQR: 38-50 min) with the majority of patients (n = 39, 78%) not requiring reinflation. Patients with bleeding requiring TRB reinflation were more likely to have low body weight and liver dysfunction, with absence of hypertension and LV dysfunction. The rate of RAO was 0% with predischarge radial artery patency documented in all patients using vascular ultrasound. One superficial hematoma was noted. No late bleeding events or cutaneous reactions were reported in the study follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical application of hm-P in conjunction with pneumatic compression was safe and resulted in rapid and predictable hemostasis at the arterial puncture site.

A comparative study of transradial versus transfemoral approach for flow diversion

PURPOSE

Data in neurointerventional literature is extremely limited regarding the safety and efficacy of flow diversion using transradial access (TRA). We aim to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of intracranial aneurysm treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) using TRA compared to transfemoral access (TFA).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database and identified 79 consecutive patients who underwent neuroendovascular embolization for cerebral aneurysms using the PED from April 2018 through October 2019. Patients were divided into 2 groups: TRA (32 patients) and TFA (47 patients). A comparative analysis was performed between the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in postoperative intracranial hemorrhage (p>.99), symptomatic ischemic stroke (p=.512), access site complications (p=.268), or other complications (p=.512). However, there was a significant increase in overall complications (14.9% vs. 0.0%, p=.038) and procedure duration (71.4 min ± 31.2 vs. 58.5 ± 20.3, p=.018) in the TFA group. There was no significant difference in complete occlusion at latest follow-up (19/25, 76.0% vs. 35/40, 87.5%; p=.311), 6-month follow-up (17/23, 73.9% vs. 33/38, 86.8%; p=.303), or 12-month follow-up (8/8, 100.0% vs. 5/6, 83.3%; p=.429). There was also no significant difference in rate of retreatment (p>.99), morbidity (p=.512), mortality (p>.99), latest follow-up (p=.985), or loss of follow-up (p=.298).

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility and efficacy of flow diversion with the PED via TRA for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms is comparable to TFA. Widespread adoption of this approach may be facilitated by improvements in device navigation and manipulation via radial-specific engineering.

Pseudoaneurysm with Median Nerve Injury Caused by Right Radial Artery Puncture: A Case Report

Background: Pseudoaneurysm with median nerve injury is a serious complication of radial artery puncture. It is very important to summarize the prevention and treatment experience of this complication through case discussion.Case report: A 66-year-old woman was admitted to the hospital because of “paroxysmal chest tightness and suffocation for 5 days.” Coronary angiography was performed. During insertion of the arterial sheath, the patient experienced severe pain in the right forearm, which radiated to the palm. The puncture sheath did not return blood after the sheath core was withdrawn. The sheath was removed and local compression was used to stop bleeding. There was no obvious bleeding at the puncture point, and the compression was removed 6 hours after the procedure. Local swelling and increased tension were seen in the right forearm. At the 1-week follow-up she exhibited swelling, high local tension, small blisters, and bluish-purple skin of the right forearm, with an acceptable right radial artery pulsation. She had severe pain in the affected limb, which radiated to the thumb, index finger, and middle finger.Case discussion: We discuss the causes of and treatment measures for pseudoaneurysm with median nerve injury caused by radial artery puncture.

Anatomic Snuffbox (Distal Radial Artery) and Radial Artery Access for Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms with FDA-Approved Flow Diverters

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Transradial access for neurointerventional procedures has been proved a safer and more comfortable alternative to femoral artery access. We present our experience with transradial (distal radial/anatomic snuffbox and radial artery) access for treatment of intracranial aneurysms using all 3 FDA-approved flow diverters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a high-volume, dual-center, retrospective analysis of each institution's data base between June 2018 and June 2020 and a collection of all patients treated with flow diversion via transradial access. Patient demographic information and procedural and radiographic data were obtained.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were identified (64 female patients) with a mean age of 57.5 years with a total of 86 aneurysms. Most aneurysms were located in the anterior circulation (93%) and within the intracranial ICA (67.4%). The mean aneurysm size was 5.5 mm. Flow diverters placed included the Pipeline Embolization Device (Flex) (PED, n = 65), the Surpass Streamline Flow Diverter (n = 8), and the Flow-Redirection Endoluminal Device (FRED, n = 1). Transradial access was successful in all cases, but femoral crossover was required in 3 cases (4.1%) due to tortuous anatomy and inadequate support of the catheters in 2 cases and an inability to navigate to the target vessel in a patient with an aberrant right subclavian artery. All 71 other interventions were successfully performed via the transradial approach (95.9%). No access site complications were encountered. Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion was encountered in 1 case (3.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Flow diverters can be successfully placed via the transradial approach with high technical success, low access site complications, and a low femoral crossover rate.

Lower complication rates associated with transradial versus transfemoral flow diverting stent placement

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no large-scale studies in the neurointerventional literature comparing safety between transradial (TRA) and transfemoral (TFA) approaches for flow diversion procedures. This study aims to assess complication rates in a large multicenter registry for TRA versus TFA flow diversion.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed flow diversion cases for cerebral aneurysms from 14 institutions from 2010 to 2019. Pooled analysis of proportions was calculated using weighted analysis with 95% CI to account for results from multiple centers. Access site complication rate and overall complication rate were compared between the two approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 2,285 patients who underwent flow diversion were analyzed, with 134 (5.86%) treated with TRA and 2151 (94.14%) via TFA. The two groups shared similar patient and aneurysm characteristics. Crossover from TRA to TFA was documented in 12 (8.63%) patients. There were no access site complications in the TRA group. There was a significantly higher access site complication rate in the TFA cohort as compared with TRA (2.48%, 95% CI 2.40% to 2.57%, vs 0%; p=0.039). One death resulted from a femoral access site complication. The overall complications rate was also higher in the TFA group (9.02%, 95% CI 8.15% to 9.89%) compared with the TRA group (3.73%, 95% CI 3.13% to 4.28%; p=0.035).

CONCLUSION

TRA may be a safer approach for flow diversion to treat cerebral aneurysms at a wide range of locations. Both access site complication rate and overall complication rate were lower for TRA flow diversion compared with TFA in this large series.

Transradial Approach for Neuroendovascular Procedures: A Single-Center Review of Safety and Feasibility

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In recent years, the transradial approach has become more widely adopted for neuroendovascular procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a transradial approach and distal transradial access for neuroendovascular procedures in a single center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed for all patients who underwent transradial approach or distal transradial access neuroendovascular procedures from January 2016 to August 2019 at a single center. Exclusion criteria included a Barbeau D waveform, a radial artery of <2 mm on sonographic evaluation, and known radial artery occlusion. Procedures were evaluated for technical success (defined as successful radial artery access and completion of the intended procedure without crossover to an auxiliary access site), complications, and adverse events during follow-up at 30 days.

RESULTS

The transradial approach or distal transradial access was attempted in 279 consecutive patients (58.1% women; median age, 57.7 years) who underwent 328 standard or distal transradial approach procedures. Two-hundred seventy-nine transradial approach and 49 distal transradial approach procedures were performed (cerebral angiography [n = 213], intracranial intervention [n = 64], head and neck intervention [n = 30], and stroke intervention [n = 21]). Technical success was 92.1%. Immediate adverse events (2.1%) included radial access site hematoma (n = 5), radial artery occlusion (n = 1), and acute severe radial artery spasm (n = 1). Thirty-day adverse events (0.3%) included a radial artery pseudoaneurysm (n = 1). Twenty-six cases (7.9%) required crossover to transfemoral access.

CONCLUSIONS

The transradial approach for neuroendovascular procedures is safe and feasible across a wide range of neuroendovascular interventions.

Radial Access for Neurointerventions

Transradial access (TRA) has become the standard approach for cardiac intervention, with a large body of evidence demonstrating a lower incidence of vascular complications, better patient experience and cost reduction. There has been increasing interest in using TRA both for diagnostic neuroangiography and for interventional neurovascular procedures. This aim of this article is to discuss the advantages and limitations of TRA for neurointerventions. General technical details, such as pre-procedure recommendations, prevention of spasm and occlusion, haemostasis protocols and distal TRA puncture, are also described, along with the specific technical details of TRA for aneurysm embolisation, stroke thrombectomy and other neurovascular interventions. TRA provides additional tools to the neurointerventionist and – with appropriate training – the whole spectrum of intervention procedures can be achieved using this approach.

Comparison between two protocols for deflation of the TR band following coronary procedures via the radial route

Aim

Coronary interventions are increasingly being performed via the radial rather than femoral route because of the lower complication rate. Compression devices such as the TR band are used to achieve hemostasis after the procedure. At present, there are no clear protocols for the deflation of the band. In this study we compared two protocols (early deflation with increased intervals vs. late deflation with smaller intervals) in terms of total time to band removal and complications, and patient and staff satisfaction.

Methods

All patients who underwent a transradial coronary procedure and had a TR band fitted were enrolled into the study. The TR band was applied using the patent hemostasis method (2 ml air pushed in after the radial pulse appears on pulse oximetry after full occlusion with 16 ml air). Patients were randomly assigned to either protocol. Protocol 1 involved removal of 2 ml of air starting 1 hour after the sheath removal and then removal of 2 ml every 30 minutes until the band came off. Protocol 2 involved removal of 4 ml of air 2 hours after the sheath removal and then further 4 ml of air every 15 minutes until the band came off. Patient and staff satisfaction was measured with a visual analogue scale.

Results

A total of 174 patients were recruited (mean age, 60 ± 11 years; 127 male, 47 female). The baseline characteristics including total heparin dose and type of procedure, in the two arms were the same. Protocol 2 (n = 84) was associated with a significantly lower time to TR band removal as compared to protocol 1 (n = 90; 201 ± 43 min vs. 274 ± 54 min; p < 0.001). There was no difference in complications such as bleeding or hematoma formation between the two groups. Patient satisfaction was the same between the two groups. However, the staff preferred protocol 1 (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

A protocol of delayed initiation of TR band deflation followed by quick deflations is associated with a lower time to band removal with no increase in bleeding complications or patient satisfaction. However, the staff preferred longer intervals between deflations.