Safety and efficiency can be preserved while transitioning to TRA. While further investigation is necessary to support transition to TRA, these findings should call for a re-evaluation of the role of TRA in catheter cerebral angiography.

BackgroundA transradial approach (TRA) is associated with fewer access site complications than a transfemoral technique (TFA).However, there is concern that performing mechanical thrombectomy (MT) via TRA may lead to longer revascularization times and thus worse outcomes. Nonetheless, TRA may confer added benefits in MT since navigation of challenging aortic arch and carotid anatomy is often facilitated by a right radial artery trajectory.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes in patients who underwent MT via TRA versus TFA.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of our institutional database to identify 51 patients with challenging vascular anatomy who underwent MT for anterior circulation large vessel occlusion between February 2015 and February 2018. Patient characteristics, procedural techniques, and outcomes were recorded. TFA and TRA cohorts were compared.ResultsOf the 51 patients, 18 (35%) underwent MT via TRA. There were no significant cohort differences in patient characteristics, clot location, or aortic arch type and presence of carotid tortuosity. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the two cohorts, including single-pass recanalization rate (54.5% vs 55.6%, p=0.949) and average number of passes (1.9 vs 1.7, p=0.453). Mean access-to-reperfusion time (61.9 vs 61.1 min, p=0.920), successful revascularization rates (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score ≥2b 87.9% vs 88.9%, p=1.0) and functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score≤2, 39.4% vs 33.3%, p=0.669) were similar between TFA and TRA cohorts, respectively.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate equivalence in efficacy and efficiency between TRA and TFA for MT of anterior circulation large vessel occlusion in patients with challenging vascular anatomy. TRA may be better than TFA in well-selected patients undergoing MT.

BackgroundThe 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.ObjectiveTo report our experience with TRA for flow diverter placement for treatment of unruptured cerebral aneurysms.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

BackgroundThe transradial approach for endovascular angiography and interventional procedures is superior to the traditional transfemoral approach in several metrics, including lower access-site complication rates, higher patient satisfaction, and lower hospital costs. Interventional cardiologists have begun to adopt the distal transradial approach (dTRA) for coronary interventions as it has an improved safety profile and improved procedural ergonomics. Adaptation of dTRA for neuroendovascular procedures promises similar benefit, but requires a learning curve.ObjectiveTo report the first use of dTRA for diagnostic cerebral angiography and demonstrate the feasibility and safety of a dTRA.MethodsA retrospective review of our prospective institutional database of consecutive cases of cerebral DSA performed via dTRA between August 2018 and December 2018 was performed. Patient demographics, procedural and radiographic metrics, and clinical data were recorded.Results85 patients were identified with an average age of 53.8 years (range 18–82); 67 (78.8%) patients were female. 78 patients underwent successful dTRA diagnostic cerebral angiography, with a mean of five vessels catheterized and average fluoroscopy time of 12.0 min, or 2.6 min for each vessel. Seven patients required conversion to transfemoral access, with the most common reason being inability to advance the wire and radial artery spasm. There were no complications.ConclusiondTRA is associated with decreased rates of radial artery occlusion, ischemic hand events, as well as improved patient comfort, faster periprocedural management, and cost benefits. Our preliminary experience with dTRA for diagnostic cerebral angiography demonstrates excellent feasibility and safety in combination with relative efficiency.