Transradial Approach for Complex Anterior and Posterior Circulation Interventions: Technical Nuances and Feasibility of Using Current Devices

• Published in: Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) Vol. 17; no. 3; pp. 293 - 302
• Main Authors: Snelling, Brian M, Sur, Samir, Shah, Sumedh S, Caplan, Justin, Khandelwal, Priyank, Yavagal, Dileep R, Starke, Robert M, Peterson, Eric C
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Oxford University Press 01.09.2019; Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc
• Subjects: Aneurysm; Chemotherapy; Diseases; Methods; Neurosurgery; United States; Thrombectomy; Interventions; Endovascular; Transradial access; Aneurysm
• ISSN: 2332-4252; 2332-4260
• DOI: 10.1093/ons/opy352

Abstract BACKGROUND Despite several studies analyzing the safety of transradial access (TRA) for neurointervention compared to transfemoral approach (TFA), neurointerventionalists are apprehensive about implementing TRA. From our positive institutional experience, we now utilize TRA first line for a majority of our cases. Here, we present our single-institution experience. OBJECTIVE To determine safety and feasibility of TRA for neurointervention. METHODS Through retrospective review of patients receiving TRA for anterior and posterior circulation cerebrovascular interventions at our institution between December 2015 and January 2018, we present our experience regarding this transition, while focusing on technique, complications, feasibility, indications, and limitations. RESULTS One hundred five procedures were performed on 92 patients (anterior circulation: 77%; posterior circulation: 23%). Radial artery access was achieved in all patients. Twenty-nine cases constituted mechanical thrombectomy, 33 cases represented intracranial aneurysms treatments, and 33 cases included interventions like angioplasty, balloon test occlusion, chemotherapy delivery, and thrombolysis. TRA was used as second-line access to TFA in 5 instances due to aortic arch anomalies and atherosclerotic disease. Minor access-site complications were seen in 2.85% of patients. Ten procedures (9.0%) could not be completed with TRA, with crossover to TFA occurring in 7 cases. CONCLUSION TRA is safe and feasible for the majority of neurointerventional procedures and provides decreased risk of major access-site complications compared to TFA. Perceived limitations of TRA can likely be eliminated via operator experience and engineering ingenuity; thus, there is a role for TRA for neurointervention, especially in patients with increased risk of access-site complications from TFA.