1Department of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia; and.
2Thomas Jefferson University Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
J Neurosurg. 2023 Nov 17;140(5):1328-1334. doi: 10.3171/2023.9.JNS23941. Print 2024 May 1.
Recently, the transradial (TR) approach has become a common alternative because of its safety profile and increased patient satisfaction compared with the transfemoral (TF) route. Both routes are associated with their respective associated costs, and differences typically emerge on the basis of patient anatomy, operator expertise, and occurrence of complications. The authors' objective was to compare the overall costs of diagnostic cerebral angiography via both routes and to shed light on the individual equipment costs of each route.
This retrospective single-center study of 926 elective diagnostic angiograms was performed between December 2019 and March 2022.
The study comprised of 314 and 612 angiograms performed through the TF and TR routes, respectively. A significantly greater proportion of female patients were included in the TF cohort (79.3% vs 67.8%, p < 0.001), and most other demographic characteristics and baseline modified Rankin Scale scores were comparable between cohorts. The overall cost of patients utilizing the TR route was comparable to that of the TF route (mean ± SD $12,591.80 ± $19,128.00 vs $12,789.50 ± 18,424.00, p = 0.88). However, the median cost of catheters was significantly higher in TR group ($55.20 vs $12.40, p = 0.03), while the median costs of closure devices ($87.00 vs $20.20 p < 0.001) and sheaths ($44.60 ± 11.3 vs $41.10 ± 3.10, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the TF group.
Overall, the authors' study showed that the TR approach can be a less expensive option for patients undergoing diagnostic cerebral angiography, especially if complications occur. Future studies may corroborate these findings and potentially lead to the adoption of TR as a low-cost, efficient, gold-standard technique for cerebral angiography.
与经股动脉(TF)途径相比,桡动脉(TR)途径因其安全性和增加的患者满意度而成为一种常见的替代方法。这两种途径都有各自的相关成本,并且通常基于患者解剖结构、操作者专业知识和并发症的发生情况而有所不同。作者的目的是比较通过这两种途径进行诊断性脑血管造影的总体成本,并阐明每种途径的个别设备成本。
这是一项回顾性的单中心研究,纳入了 2019 年 12 月至 2022 年 3 月期间进行的 926 例选择性诊断性血管造影。
该研究包括通过 TF 和 TR 途径进行的 314 例和 612 例血管造影。TF 组中女性患者的比例明显更高(79.3% vs. 67.8%,p < 0.001),而大多数其他人口统计学特征和基线改良Rankin 量表评分在两组之间相似。使用 TR 途径的患者的总体成本与 TF 途径相当(平均±SD,$12591.80±19128.00 与$12789.50±18424.00,p=0.88)。然而,TR 组的导管中位成本明显更高($55.20 与$12.40,p=0.03),而 TF 组的闭合装置中位成本($87.00 与$20.20,p<0.001)和鞘中位成本($44.60±11.3 与$41.10±3.10,p<0.001)明显更高。
总体而言,作者的研究表明,TR 方法对于接受诊断性脑血管造影的患者来说可能是一种更具成本效益的选择,特别是在发生并发症的情况下。未来的研究可能会证实这些发现,并有可能导致 TR 作为一种低成本、高效、金标准的脑血管造影技术得到采用。