Clinical StudyTransradial Approach for Noncoronary Interventions: A Single-Center Review of Safety and Feasibility in the First 1,500 Cases
Section snippets
Study Design and Exclusion Criteria
This single-center study was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and approved by the local institutional review board. A retrospective analysis was performed of 946 patients evaluated for 1,531 consecutive TRA procedures from April 2012 to July 2015. During this period, specific procedural data including sheath size, technical success, and complications were collected in a prospective manner for 1,512 consecutive TRA procedures in 936 patients who qualified
Results
Of 1,531 procedures evaluated, 1,512 met the inclusion criteria for TRA. Among the 19 cases (1.24%) that were contraindicated for TRA, seven procedures were contraindicated for patients having a prior history of RAO, seven for patients having Barbeau type D waveform, and five for patients having a RA that was < 2 mm in diameter. Technical success was achieved in 1,485 of 1,512 cases (98.2%) in which TRA was attempted.
Among the 936 patients meeting the criteria for TRA, 353 patients (35.8%) had
Discussion
This study presents data from 1,512 consecutive cases of TRA noncoronary interventions performed in 936 patients. The strength of these data lies in the volume and broad range of cases for which TRA was used in a real-world setting at a single-center institution among 15 operators with various levels of TRA case experience. Among these operators, five were considered experienced (> 50 cases performed), and four were moderately experienced (> 10 but < 50 cases). Additionally, data on
References (28)
- et al.
Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE-STEACS (radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome) study
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2012) - et al.
Effects of radial versus femoral artery access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2012) - et al.
Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial
Lancet
(2015) - et al.
Access site practice and procedural outcomes in relation to clinical presentation in 439,947 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the United Kingdom
JACC Cardiovasc Interv
(2015) - et al.
Costs of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention
JACC Cardiovasc Interv
(2013) - et al.
Comparison of transradial and transfemoral artery approach for percutaneous coronary angiography and angioplasty: a retrospective seven-year experience from a north Indian center
Indian Heart J
(2013) - et al.
Uterine artery embolization using a transradial approach: initial experience and technique
J Vasc Interv Radiol
(2014) - et al.
Evaluation of the ulnopalmar arterial arches with pulse oximetry and plethysmography: comparison with the Allen’s test in 1010 patients
Am Heart J
(2004) - et al.
A technical guide describing the use of transradial access technique for endovascular interventions
Tech Vasc Interv Radiol
(2015) - et al.
Quality improvement guidelines for diagnostic arteriography
J Vasc Interv Radiol
(2014)
Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention in women with acute coronary syndromes: insights from the RIVAL trial (radial vs femorAL access for coronary intervention)
JACC Cardiovasc Interv
Intra-arterial verapamil-induced seizures: case report and review of the literature
Surg Neurol
Adoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007-2012)
Circulation
Transradial access for renal artery intervention
Interv Med Appl Sci
Cited by (122)
Commentary on the “Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization via Transradial Access versus Transfemoral Access”
2024, Journal of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyTransradial versus Transfemoral Access for Patients with Liver Cancer Undergoing Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy: Patient Experience and Procedural Complications
2022, Journal of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyProspective Study of Radial Artery Occlusion Following Transradial Arterial Access during IR Procedures
2022, Journal of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyWrist Extension Does Not Change the Position of the Radial Artery: Cadaveric Study With Application to Arterial Line Placement, and Transradial Neurointerventional Procedures
2021, World NeurosurgeryCitation Excerpt :It has benefits over the transfemoral approach including lower morbidity and mortality, lower risk of bleeding, earlier discharge, and collateral circulation to the hand from other arteries. Nevertheless, it has downsides including the difficulty of the procedure owing to the smaller size of the artery, the time spent performing the procedure, and the lack of relevant training and experience among medical specialists.1-7 Overall comparisons between the transfemoral and transradial approaches have led many centers and clinicians to opt for the latter because there are fewer side effects overall, leading to lower hospital costs and greater patient satisfaction stemming from earlier ambulation and fewer postoperative complications.14,15
French Interventional Radiology Centers’ Uptake of Transradial Approach and Outpatient Hepatocellular Carcinoma Intra-Arterial Treatments
2024, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
R.S.P. is a consultant for Sirtex Medical Ltd (North Sydney, Australia) and Arstasis, Inc (Fremont, California). E.K. is a consultant for Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and is on the advisory board for Onyx Pharmaceuticals (South San Francisco, California) and the speaker’s bureau for BTG International Inc (West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania). R.A.L. is a consultant for Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany), Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, New Jersey), and Boston Scientific Corporation (Marlborough, Massachusetts). A.M.F. is a consultant for Surefire Medical, Inc (Westminster, Colorado) and Terumo Medical Corporation (Somerset, New Jersey) and is on the advisory board for Terumo Medical Corporation. None of the other authors have identified a conflict of interest.