Marcus Neuroscience Institute, Boca Raton Regional Hospital, Boca Raton, Florida.
Department of Neurosurgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2019 Sep 1;17(3):293-302. doi: 10.1093/ons/opy352.
Despite several studies analyzing the safety of transradial access (TRA) for neurointervention compared to transfemoral approach (TFA), neurointerventionalists are apprehensive about implementing TRA. From our positive institutional experience, we now utilize TRA first line for a majority of our cases. Here, we present our single-institution experience.
To determine safety and feasibility of TRA for neurointervention.
Through retrospective review of patients receiving TRA for anterior and posterior circulation cerebrovascular interventions at our institution between December 2015 and January 2018, we present our experience regarding this transition, while focusing on technique, complications, feasibility, indications, and limitations.
One hundred five procedures were performed on 92 patients (anterior circulation: 77%; posterior circulation: 23%). Radial artery access was achieved in all patients. Twenty-nine cases constituted mechanical thrombectomy, 33 cases represented intracranial aneurysms treatments, and 33 cases included interventions like angioplasty, balloon test occlusion, chemotherapy delivery, and thrombolysis. TRA was used as second-line access to TFA in 5 instances due to aortic arch anomalies and atherosclerotic disease. Minor access-site complications were seen in 2.85% of patients. Ten procedures (9.0%) could not be completed with TRA, with crossover to TFA occurring in 7 cases.
TRA is safe and feasible for the majority of neurointerventional procedures and provides decreased risk of major access-site complications compared to TFA. Perceived limitations of TRA can likely be eliminated via operator experience and engineering ingenuity; thus, there is a role for TRA for neurointervention, especially in patients with increased risk of access-site complications from TFA.
尽管有几项研究分析了经桡动脉入路(TRA)与经股动脉入路(TFA)相比用于神经介入的安全性,但神经介入医生对实施 TRA 仍持谨慎态度。基于我们积极的机构经验,我们现在将 TRA 作为我们大多数病例的一线入路。在这里,我们呈现我们的单机构经验。
确定 TRA 用于神经介入的安全性和可行性。
通过回顾性分析 2015 年 12 月至 2018 年 1 月期间在我院接受 TRA 的前循环和后循环脑血管介入治疗的患者,我们介绍了我们在这一转变过程中的经验,重点介绍技术、并发症、可行性、适应证和局限性。
92 名患者共进行了 105 例手术(前循环:77%;后循环:23%)。所有患者均成功获得桡动脉入路。29 例为机械血栓切除术,33 例为颅内动脉瘤治疗,33 例包括血管成形术、球囊试验闭塞、化疗输送和溶栓等介入治疗。由于主动脉弓异常和动脉粥样硬化疾病,TRA 作为 TFA 的二线入路在 5 例中使用。2.85%的患者出现轻微的入路部位并发症。有 10 例(9.0%)手术无法用 TRA 完成,其中 7 例转为 TFA。
TRA 对于大多数神经介入手术是安全可行的,与 TFA 相比,它降低了主要入路部位并发症的风险。TRA 的局限性可以通过操作人员的经验和工程创意来消除;因此,TRA 在后循环神经介入中具有一定的作用,特别是在 TFA 入路部位并发症风险较高的患者中。