9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Transradial approach for flow diversion treatment of cerebral aneurysms: a multicenter study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The transradial approach (TRA) to endovascular procedures decreases access site morbidity and mortality in comparison with the traditional transfemoral technique (TFA). Despite its improved safety profile, there is a concern that TRA is less favorable for neurointerventional procedures that require large coaxial systems to manage the small tortuous cerebral vessels.

          Objective

          To report our experience with TRA for flow diverter placement for treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms.

          Methods

          We performed a retrospective review of prospective institutional databases at two high-volume centers to identify 49 patients who underwent flow diversion for aneurysm treatment via primary TRA between November 2016 and November 2018. Patient demographics, procedural techniques, and clinical data were recorded.

          Results

          Of the 49 patients, 39 underwent successful flow diversion placement by TRA. Ten patients were converted to TFA after attempted TRA. There were no procedural complications. Reasons for failure included tortuosity in eight patients and severe radial artery spasm in two.

          Conclusions

          In the largest reported series to date of flow diverter deployment via TRA for aneurysm treatment, we demonstrate the technical feasibility and safety of the method. The most common reason for failure of TRA was an acute angle of left common carotid artery origin or left internal carotid artery tortuosity. Overall, our data suggest that increasing adoption of TRA is merited given its apparent equivalence to the current TFA technique and its documented reduction in access site complications.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

          Small randomized trials have demonstrated that radial access reduces access site complications compared to a femoral approach. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine if radial access reduces major bleeding and as a result can reduce death and ischemic events compared to femoral access. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from 1980 to April 2008. Relevant conference abstracts from 2005 to April 2008 were searched. Randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access coronary angiography or intervention that reported major bleeding, death, myocardial infarction, and procedural or fluoroscopy time were included. A fixed-effects model was used with a random effects for sensitivity analysis. Radial access reduced major bleeding by 73% compared to femoral access (0.05% vs 2.3%, OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.16, 0.45], P < .001). There was a trend for reductions in the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (2.5% vs 3.8%, OR 0.71 [95% CI 0.49-1.01], P = .058) as well as death (1.2% vs 1.8% OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.42-1.30], P = .29). There was a trend for higher rate of inability to the cross lesion with wire, balloon, or stent during percutaneous coronary intervention with radial access (4.7% vs 3.4% OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.87, 1.94], P = .21). Radial access reduced hospital stay by 0.4 days (95% CI 0.2-0.5, P = .0001). Radial access reduced major bleeding and there was a corresponding trend for reduction in ischemic events compared to femoral access. Large randomized trials are needed to confirm the benefit of radial access on death and ischemic events.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluation of the ulnopalmar arterial arches with pulse oximetry and plethysmography: comparison with the Allen's test in 1010 patients.

            To avoid ischemic hand complications, the percutaneous transradial approach is only performed in patients with patent hand collateral arteries, which is usually evaluated with the modified Allen's test (MAT). This qualitative test measures the time needed for maximal palmar blush after release of the ulnar artery compression with occlusive pressure of the radial artery. The objectives were to evaluate the patency of the hand collateral arteries and to compare MAT with combined plethysmography (PL) and pulse oximetry (OX) tests before the percutaneous transradial approach. Patients referred to the catheterization laboratory were prospectively examined with MAT, PL, and OX tests. PL readings during radial artery compression were divided into 4 types: A, no damping; B, slight damping of pulse tracing; C, loss followed by recovery; or D, no recovery of pulse tracing within 2 minutes. OX results were either positive or negative. Results of both tests were compared in 1010 consecutive patients. MAT results < or =9 seconds on either hand were seen in 93.7% of patients. PL and OX types A, B, or C on either hand were seen in 98.5% of patients. On the basis of the MAT < or =9 seconds criteria, 6.3% of patients were excluded from the transradial approach, whereas with PL and OX types A, B, and C, only 1.5% of patients were excluded. There was more exclusion in men and with increasing age by using both methods. In the evaluation of hand collaterals, PL and OX were found to be more sensitive than MAT. When applied to transradial approach screening, only 1.5% of patients were not suitable candidates for the transradial approach.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Association of the arterial access site at angioplasty with transfusion and mortality: the M.O.R.T.A.L study (Mortality benefit Of Reduced Transfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention via the Arm or Leg).

              Bleeding and transfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are known predictors of mortality. Transradial arterial access reduces bleeding and transfusion related to femoral access complications, although its association with mortality is unknown. To determine the association of arterial access site (radial or femoral) with transfusion and mortality in unselected PCIs. By data linkage of three prospectively collated provincial registries, 38,872 procedures in 32,822 patients in British Columbia were analysed. The association between access site, transfusion and outcomes was assessed by logistic regression, propensity score matching and probit regression. 30-Day and 1-year mortality. 1134 (3.5%) patients had at least one blood transfusion. Transfused patients had a significantly increased 30-day and 1-year mortality, adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) 4.01 (3.08 to 5.22) and 3.58 (2.94 to 4.36), respectively. By probit regression the absolute increase in risk of death at 1 year associated with receiving a transfusion was 6.78%. The number needed to treat was 14.74 (prevention of 15 transfusions required to "avoid" one death). Radial access halved the transfusion rate. After adjustment for all variables, radial access was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day and 1-year mortality, odds ratio = 0.71 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.82) and 0.83 (0.71 to 0.98), respectively (all p<0.001). In a registry of all comers to PCI, transradial access was associated with a halving of the transfusion rate and a reduction in 30-day and 1-year mortality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
                J NeuroIntervent Surg
                BMJ
                1759-8478
                1759-8486
                July 11 2019
                August 2019
                August 2019
                January 22 2019
                : 11
                : 8
                : 796-800
                Article
                10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014620
                30670622
                03892988-a7b9-4215-838a-beb5106999d0
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article