Distal Transradial Artery Access for Neuroangiography and Neurointerventions : Pitfalls and Exploring the Boundaries.

INTRODUCTION: The distal transradial approach (dTRA) is progressively gaining more clinical use in the fields of cardiology and other vascular interventions, as it offers a number of advantages compared to conventional radial approach (TRA). These include lower rates of vascular occlusion which permits preservation of the proximal radial artery for future procedures in the event of a distal occlusion. AIM: To share the experience in the use of dTRA for neurointerventions, showing its advantages, pitfalls as well as sharing our optimized puncture and hemostatic ultrarapid compression protocols to improve the use of this vascular access. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of our experience of diagnostic and interventional procedures performed via dTRA using an optimized protocol for puncture and postpuncture compression of the dTRA was performed. The rate of complications (hematoma and arterial dissection at puncture site) femoral crossover, and assessment of postprocedural stenosis/occlusion with the ultrarapid compression protocol were also assessed. RESULTS: From March 2019 to July 2020 a total of 100 distal radial procedures were carried out and 53 diagnostic angiograms (53%) and 47 interventional procedures (47%) were included in the analysis. We achieved a 96% technical success, with a femoral crossover requirement in 3 cases (3%), and one conventional TRA crossover due to puncture failure. Of the patients 3 presented puncture site hematomas (3%) with no intervention required, 61 patients (61%) underwent the ultrarapid hemostasis protocol in association with a hemostatic pad. Ultrasound follow-up was performed in 20 patients (20%) at 1-2 months with 1 case of occlusion (5%) and 2 of radial stenosis (10%). In all 3 cases proximal radial artery remained patent. CONCLUSION: The dTRA is a safe and feasible access route for angiography and neurointerventions. Using vasodilators prepuncture, we attained a variable increase in the vascular diameter facilitating puncture and reducing the risk of occlusion and vascular spasm. A rapid deflation protocol for postpuncture hemostasis does not significantly increase the hematoma rate.

Transradial versus transfemoral access for acute stroke endovascular thrombectomy: a 4-year experience in a high-volume center.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes and safety of transradial (TRA) versus transfemoral access (TFA) for endovascular mechanical thrombectomy in acute stroke patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 832 consecutive patients with acute stroke undergoing interventional thrombectomy using TRA (n = 64) or TFA (n = 768). RESULTS: Direct TFA failures occurred in 36 patients, 18 of which underwent crossover TFA to TRA, while direct TRA failures occurred in 2 patients having both crossovers to TFA. Successful catheterization was achieved in 96.8% (62/64) and 95.3% (732/768) of patients undergoing direct TRA and direct TFA, respectively, without significant differences. The median (IQR) catheterization time was 10 (8-16) min in the direct TRA group and 15 (10-20) in the direct TFA group (P < 0.001). This difference was also significant in the subgroup of anterior circulation strokes and in patients younger and older than 80 years of age. The majority of procedures yielded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction grade 2b/2c/3 revascularization in patients undergoing direct TRA (88.5%) and direct TFA (90.8%), without statistically significant differences. The median (IQR) puncture to recanalization time was 37 (24-58) min for the direct TRA group and 42 (28-70) min for the direct TFA group. Significant differences in access site complications, symptomatic ICH, and mRS score 0-2 at 90 days between both TRA and TFA accesses were not found. CONCLUSIONS: TRA is not inferior to TFA in the probability of catheterization, times of catheterization and revascularization, and other clinical outcomes for mechanical thrombectomy in acute stroke.

Transradial access for diagnostic angiography and interventional neuroradiology procedures: A four-year single-center experience.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of transradial access for diagnostic angiography and interventional neuroradiology procedures. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a single-center experience based on 225 patients attended between August 2015 and October 2019, in which transradial access was used for diagnostic angiography and endovascular interventions. Ultrasound-guided access was done at the level of the forearm or anatomical or snuffbox (distal transradial access). Conventional forearm transradial access was done in 179 procedures (right, left and bilateral in 169, 5 and 5, respectively), while distal transradial access was done in 46 cases (41 right and 5 left). Primary outcome measures included successful catheterization, need to change access, or technical complications. RESULTS: In the group of 131 diagnostic angiographies, the technique success rate was 100% to target the right vertebral artery, 97% for the right internal carotid, 93.5% for the left internal carotid, 82% for the left vertebral artery, and 100% for both common and external carotid arteries. All patients were discharged within 2-4 h after the procedure. A total of 94 interventional procedures were performed, including aneurysms in 39 cases, stroke in 34, and other procedures (carotid stents, arteriovenous malformations, carotid-cavernous fistula) in the remaining 21. The overall technical success in both diagnostic angiographies and interventional procedures was 97.7%. In four cases of diagnostic angiography and in 1 intervention, it was necessary to switch from transradial access to transfemoral access. Three cases of hematoma related to the access site were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, transradial access is an alternative approach for diagnostic angiography and neuro-interventions.