No abstract

BackgroundAlthough studies continue to demonstrate lower complications in neurointerventions using transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral approaches, anatomic radial variants can be difficult to navigate and remain one of the frequent causes of access site conversion.ObjectiveTo evaluate predictors of TRA failure in neuroendovascular patients with radial loops and suggest a protocol for managing these anomalies.MethodsA prospective collection of patients undergoing TRA at participating institutions from July 2018 to September 2020 was reviewed. Patients with a radial loop were identified. Patient demographics and procedural characteristics were evaluated to determine predictors of both TRA failure and successful reduction of the radial loop.ResultsWe identified 32 transradial neurointerventions in which patients had radial loops. Twenty-two (68.8%) were identified by diagnostic angiography, and the majority were performed for evaluation or treatment of an aneurysm (56.3%). TRA failure occurred in 13 (40.6%) of the cohort and happened more frequently in patients over 60 years of age (p=0.01) and those with recurrent radial artery diameters ≤2 mm (p=0.02). Of the 19 patients who had successful TRA, 12 (63.2%) procedures were performed through the recurrent radial artery.ConclusionAlthough radial loops are associated with high transradial failure rates, our results suggest that the presence of a loop is not an absolute contraindication to TRA. Therefore, we recommend attempting loop navigation using our protocol. Patient age, vascular tortuosity, and recurrent radial artery size should help dictate when to convert to an alternative access site.

BackgroundMany neurointerventionalists have transitioned to transradial access (TRA) as the preferred approach for neurointerventions as studies continue to demonstrate fewer access site complications than transfemoral access. However, radial artery spasm (RAS) remains one of the most commonly cited reasons for access site conversions. We discuss the benefits, techniques, and indications for using the long radial sheath in RAS and present our experience after implementing a protocol for routine use.MethodsA retrospective review of all patients undergoing neurointerventions via TRA at our institution from July 2018 to April 2020 was performed. In November 2019, we implemented a long radial sheath protocol to address RAS. Patient demographics, RAS rates, radial artery diameter, and access site conversions were compared before and after the introduction of the protocol.Results747 diagnostic cerebral angiograms and neurointerventional procedures in which TRA was attempted as the primary access site were identified; 247 were performed after the introduction of the long radial sheath protocol. No significant differences in age, gender, procedure type, sheath sizes, and radial artery diameter were seen between the two cohorts. Radial anomalies and small radial diameters were more frequently seen in patients with RAS. Patients with clinically significant RAS more often required access site conversion (p<0.0001), and in our multivariable model use of the long sheath was the only covariate protective against radial failure (OR 0.061, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.517; p=0.0103).ConclusionIn our experience, we have found that the use of long radial sheaths significantly reduces the need for access site conversions in patients with RAS during cerebral angiography and neurointerventions.