Commentary: Transition to Radial Approach for Neurovascular Procedures is Safe and Convenient: Characterization of a Learning Experience

Daou, Badih; Koduri, Sravanthi; Pandey, Aditya S.

doi:10.1093/ons/opaa216

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Radial access is rapidly emerging as a safe and effective alternative to the transfemoral approach within neurointerventional surgery. [1][2][3][4] This method was pioneered within cardiovascular intervention, as it provided comparable diagnostic and therapeutic technical success, and was associated with fewer access-site related complications than femoral access. 5 A 2018 Cochrane review of 31 interventional cardiology randomized controlled trials concluded that transradial access reduced death from cardiac causes, 30 day all-cause mortality, bleeding, local access-site complications, and hospital length of stay.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 In neurointerventional surgery, various institutional and multicenter studies have recently corroborated similar safety, feasibility, and clinical benefits of radial catheterization for cerebral and spinal angiography, stroke rescue, tumor embolization, and treatment of aneurysms, arteriovenous fistulas, and vascular malformations. [1][2][3][4][7][8][9][10][11][12] The ability to perform transradial catheterization is an important tool to have in a neurointerventional armamentarium. The speed of technique adoption within the field will in part be dependent upon the growing pool of evidence for transradial access efficacy, and the rate of information dissemination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

#RadialFirst and #RadialForNeuro: A descriptive analysis of Twitter conversations regarding transradial access

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Transradial access for neurointerventional procedures was adopted and modified from cardiovascular intervention and is increasingly established as a safe and effective alternative to transfemoral catheterization. As social media influences public opinion on medical treatment, this study analyzes Twitter conversations to elucidate social media’s depiction of transradial access as a neurointerventional tool. Materials and methods Twitter hashtags #RadialFirst and #RadialForNeuro were evaluated using a mixed-method analysis of quantitative social media metrics and qualitative thematic analysis. Results Between January 2015 and April 2020, 104,146 tweets from 141 countries employed the hashtag #RadialFirst (2015 (1); 2016 (0); 2017 (22,804); 2018 (33,074); 2019 (38,352); 2020 (9,915 January-April)). These generated 226,909,374 impressions and were retweeted 80,120 times by 13,707 users. Media was present in 62.5% of tweets (e.g. wrist image, angiographic runs) but only 14.5% had a reference article. Physicians authored 70.8% of tweets; interventional cardiologists accounted for 83% of top 100 influencers. #RadialForNeuro is more nascent (6 posts in 2019; 323 posts January–April 2020), with 392,662 impressions, and 254 retweets by 177 users; physicians authored 35.6%. Compared to #RadialFirst, #RadialforNeuro tweets were more likely to include media (76%), less likely to include citations (9.7%), and more likely to discuss complications and troubleshooting techniques. Conclusion Twitter activity regarding transradial access permits information dissemination and discussion on approach benefits and challenges. However, many posts arise from non-physician sources and lack links to peer-reviewed publication. The public should be mindful that tweets may reflect opinions, rather than experience or scientific evidence.

show abstract