Transitioning to Transradial Access for Cerebral Aneurysm Embolization

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Mamas MA,
   3. Tosh J,
   4. Hulme W, et al

   . Health economic analysis of access site practice in England during changes in practice: insights from the British Cardiovascular Interventional Society. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2018;11:e004482 doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.117.004482 pmid:29743163

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Jolly SS,
   3. Yusuf S,
   4. Cairns J, et al

   . Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 2011;377:1409–20 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60404-2 pmid:21470671

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Alnasser SM,
   3. Bagai A,
   4. Jolly SS, et al

   . Transradial approach for coronary angiography and intervention in the elderly: a meta-analysis of 777,841 patients. Int J Cardiol 2017;228:45–51 doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.207 pmid:27863361

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Chase AJ,
   3. Fretz EB,
   4. Warburton WP, et al

   . Association of the arterial access site at angioplasty with transfusion and mortality: the M.O.R.T.A.L study (Mortality benefit Of Reduced Transfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention via the Arm or Leg). Heart 2008;94:1019–25 doi:10.1136/hrt.2007.136390

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Valgimigli M,
   3. Gagnor A,
   4. Calabró P, et al; MATRIX Investigators

   . Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2015;385:2465–76 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60292-6 pmid:25791214

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Brueck M,
   3. Bandorski D,
   4. Kramer W, et al

   . A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:1047–54 doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2009.07.016 pmid:19926042

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Wang YB,
   3. Fu XH,
   4. Wang XC, et al

   . Randomized comparison of radial versus femoral approach for patients with STEMI undergoing early PCI following intravenous thrombolysis. J Invasive Cardiol 2012;24:412–16 pmid:22865313

   PubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Kok MM,
   3. Weernink MG,
   4. von Birgelen C, et al

   . Patient preference for radial versus femoral vascular access for elective coronary procedures: the PREVAS study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018;91:17–24 doi:10.1002/ccd.27039 pmid:28470994

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Neumann FJ,
   3. Sousa-Uva M,
   4. Ahlsson A, et al

   . 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019;40:87–165 doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394 pmid:30165437

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Ball WT,
    3. Sharieff W,
    4. Jolly SS, et al

    . Characterization of operator learning curve for transradial coronary interventions. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:336–41 doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.110.960864 pmid:21813402

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Benamer H,
    3. Louvard Y,
    4. Sanmartin M, et al

    . A multicentre comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and PTCA in obese patients: the TROP registry. EuroIntervention 2007;3:327–32 doi:10.4244/EIJV3I3A60 pmid:19737713

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Snelling BM,
    3. Sur S,
    4. Shah SS, et al

    . Transradial cerebral angiography: techniques and outcomes. J Neurointerv Surg 2018;10:874–81 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013584] pmid:29311120

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Brunet MC,
    3. Chen SH,
    4. Sur S, et al

    . Distal transradial access in the anatomical snuffbox for diagnostic cerebral angiography. J Neurointerv Surg 2019;11:710–13 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014718] pmid:30814329

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Snelling BM,
    3. Sur S,
    4. Shah SS, et al

    . Transradial approach for complex anterior and posterior circulation interventions: technical nuances and feasibility of using current devices. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2019;17:293–302 doi:10.1093/ons/opy352] pmid:30496537

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Chen SH,
    3. Snelling BM,
    4. Shah SS, et al

    . Transradial approach for flow diversion treatment of cerebral aneurysms: a multicenter study. J Neurointerv Surg 2019;11:796–800 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014620 pmid:30670622

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Goland J,
    3. Doroszuk GF,
    4. Garbugino SL, et al

    . Transradial approach to treating endovascular cerebral aneurysms: case series and technical note. Surg Neurol Int 2017;8:73 doi:10.4103/sni.sni_393_16

    CrossRef
17. 17.↵
    2. Feldman DN,
    3. Swaminathan RV,
    4. Kaltenbach LA, et al

    . 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 2013;127:2295–306 doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000536 pmid:23753843

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    2. Aykan AÇ,
    3. Gökdeniz T,
    4. Gül I, et al

    . Comparison of low dose versus standard dose heparin for radial approach in elective coronary angiography? Int J Cardiol 2015;187:389–92 doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.314 pmid:25841133

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Pancholy SB

    . Comparison of the effect of intra-arterial versus intravenous heparin on radial artery occlusion after transradial catheterization. Am J Cardiol 2009;104:1083–85 doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.05.057 pmid:19801029

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Pancholy S,
    3. Coppola J,
    4. Patel T, et al

    . Prevention of radial artery occlusion-patent hemostasis evaluation trial (PROPHET study): a randomized comparison of traditional versus patency documented hemostasis after transradial catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent 2008;72:335–40 doi:10.1002/ccd.21639 pmid:18726956

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Pierot L,
    3. Wakhloo AK

    . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: current status. Stroke 2013;44:2046–54 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.000733 pmid:23798560

    FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Peruga JP,
    3. Peruga JZ,
    4. Kasprzak JD, et al

    . Ultrasound evaluation of forearm arteries in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention via radial artery access: results of one-year follow-up. Kardiol Pol 2015;73:502–10 doi:10.5603/KP.a2015.0029 pmid:25733173

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Velasco A,
    3. Ono C,
    4. Nugent K, et al

    . Ultrasonic evaluation of the radial artery diameter in a local population from Texas. J Invasive Cardiol 2012;24:339–41 pmid:22781473

    PubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Nie B,
    3. Zhou YJ,
    4. Yang Q, et al

    . Safety and feasibility of repeated percutaneous transradial coronary intervention in the same route. Chin Med J (Engl) 2012;125:221–25 pmid:22340549

    PubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Loh YJ,
    3. Nakao M,
    4. Tan WD, et al

    . Factors influencing radial artery size. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2007;15:324–26 doi:10.1177/021849230701500412 pmid:17664207

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Yan Z,
    3. Zhou Y,
    4. Zhao Y, et al

    . Anatomical study of forearm arteries with ultrasound for percutaneous coronary procedures. Circ J 2010;74:686–92 doi:10.1253/circj.CJ-09-0577 pmid:20197630

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Saito S,
    3. Ikei H,
    4. Hosokawa G, et al

    . Influence of the ratio between radial artery inner diameter and sheath outer diameter on radial artery flow after transradial coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent 1999;46:173–78 doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-726X(199902)46:2<173::AID-CCD12>3.0.CO;2-4 pmid:10348538

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Gross BA,
    3. Kenmuir CL,
    4. Ares WJ, et al

    . Pericallosal aneurysm coiling with a “hubbed” 167 cm 0.013” Headway duo via a transradial approach. J Clin Neurosci 2018;53:273–75 doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2018.04.049 pmid:29716803

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Plourde G,
    3. Pancholy SB,
    4. Nolan J, et al

    . Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2015;386:2192–203 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00305-0 pmid:26411986

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Sciahbasi A,
    3. Frigoli E,
    4. Sarandrea A, et al

    . Radiation exposure and vascular access in acute coronary syndromes: the RAD-Matrix trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:2530–37 doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.018 pmid:28330794

    FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    2. Miller DL,
    3. Kwon D,
    4. Bonavia GH

    . Reference levels for patient radiation doses in interventional radiology: proposed initial values for U.S. practice. Radiology 2009;253:753–64 doi:10.1148/radiol.2533090354 pmid:19789226

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    2. Sciahbasi A,
    3. Frigoli E,
    4. Sarandrea A, et al

    . Determinants of radiation dose during right transradial access: Insights from the RAD-MATRIX study. Am Heart J 2018;196:113–18 doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2017.10.014 pmid:29421003

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Hess CN,
    3. Peterson ED,
    4. Neely ML, et al

    . The learning curve for transradial percutaneous coronary intervention among operators in the United States: a study from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circulation 2014;129:2277–86 doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006356 pmid:24756064

    Abstract/FREE Full Text