Evolution of Radial Access in Neurointerventional Surgery

D. Dornbos

doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7060

Incorporating innovative technologies and techniques often precipitates paradigm shifts in patient care. Despite the rapid evolution of endovascular devices and techniques, the idiom “primum non nocere” or “first, do no harm” must remain at the forefront of the interventionalist’s use of new therapies. While change at times may be driven by innovations that increase the speed or ease of a procedure, new techniques that facilitate improved efficacy, an enhanced safety profile, or the ability to treat an otherwise untreatable pathology should be the primary driving force behind technologic advances. One such therapy, the move to transradial access (TRA) for neurointerventional procedures, has marked a sizeable paradigm shift in the literature and care of neurovascular patients during the past several years.

Following compelling data from the cardiovascular literature,^1,2 a boom in the use of transradial access in diagnostic and interventional endovascular neurosurgery procedures has been observed.^3⇓⇓-6 In addition to an improved patient safety profile, TRA tends to enhance patient comfort and allows earlier mobilization and shorter observation for outpatient procedures. As neurointerventionalists have gained further experience, TRA has been used with increasing frequency for interventions as well.^7,8

The learning curve may be steep at the onset of converting to a radial-first approach, with increased procedural and fluoroscopic times a legitimate concern.⁹ Nonetheless, while fluoroscopy times may be marginally increased (approximately 4 minutes), a significant reduction in overall complications has been observed with TRA, generating a near 4-fold decrease in the rate of complications.⁹ Additionally, while the learning curve may be daunting at the onset, high success and low rates of crossover are experienced after as little as 30 TRA cases, with many skills from transfemoral access (TFA) being readily transferrable to TRA.¹⁰

In the setting of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, access site complications are not infrequent with TFA, with major and overall access site complication rates of 1.67% and 4.59%, respectively, leaving room for improvement in the treatment of this patient population.¹¹ While robust head-to-head comparisons of TFA and TRA do not yet exist in the neurointerventional literature, the use of TRA in interventional procedures has been shown to have lower major (0.15%) and overall (2.75%) access site complication rates.⁷ As TRA experience has grown, so has its use in the setting of acute thrombectomy, where time and efficiency remain paramount. In fact, equivalent procedural times have been observed in this time-sensitive interventional procedure.^12,13 A comparison of mean procedural times between TRA (60 minutes) to TFA (66 minutes) in the setting of thrombectomy for large-vessel occlusion found no difference in time metrics between the 2 approaches.¹²

Despite its advantages, certain anatomic features may not prove favorable for transradial access. Previous studies have shown that the presence of a proximal radial loop, severe subclavian and innominate artery tortuosity, and proximal common carotid tortuosity yield a higher degree of difficulty for TRA with a higher conversion rate to TFA.¹⁴ Particularly in time-sensitive procedures, patients having these anatomic configurations may be best served with TFA, because the benefits afforded by TRA must be weighed against the potential time lost. Nonetheless, TRA has demonstrably lower rates of access site complications and resultant patient morbidity; thus, partiality ought to be shown to TRA in the absence of certain anatomic constraints.

While transradial access for middle meningeal artery embolization is being used with greater frequency,¹⁵ Shotar et al¹⁶ presented their experience using a patient-tailored approach to the access site based on preprocedural CT angiograms and interventionalist’s discretion, with a strong radial recommendation for right carotid catheterization in patients with a type III aortic arch with proximal common carotid artery tortuosity and for left carotid navigation in case of a bovine arch configuration. Using this approach, they found a greater rate of procedural success with less catheterization failures.

Given the safety benefit afforded by transradial access, in addition to the secondary gains of improved patient comfort and early mobilization, a radial-first approach for both diagnostic and interventional procedures has continued to evolve within neurointerventional surgery. A tailored approach using frontline TRA for both diagnostic and interventional procedures, augmented with TFA for certain hostile anatomic configurations, maintains a patient-centered focus, aimed at improving care through enhanced safety. As more familiarity with the technique and new devices develop, rates of crossover and potential time differences will decrease while maintaining the improved safety profile afforded by TRA, thus enhancing the neurointerventional care provided to our patients.

References

1.↵
1. Valgimigli M,
2. Frigoli E,
3. Leonardi S, et al
. MATRIX Investigators. Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018;392:835–48 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31714-8 pmid:30153988
CrossRef PubMed
2.↵
1. Jolly SS,
2. Yusuf S,
3. 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
CrossRef PubMed
3.↵
1. Almallouhi E,
2. Leary J,
3. Wessell J, et al
. Fast-track incorporation of the transradial approach in endovascular neurointervention. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:176–80 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015127 pmid:31300534
Abstract/FREE Full Text
4.↵
1. Snelling BM,
2. Sur S,
3. Shah SS, et al
. RIVAL trial group. Transradial cerebral angiography: techniques and outcomes. J Neurointerv Surg 2018;10:874–81 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013584 pmid:21470671
Abstract/FREE Full Text
5.↵
1. Chivot C,
2. Bouzerar R,
3. Yzet T
. Transitioning to transradial access for cerebral aneurysm embolization. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:1947–53 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6234 pmid:31582386
Abstract/FREE Full Text
6.↵
1. Layton KF,
2. Kallmes DF,
3. Cloft HJ
. The radial artery access site for interventional neuroradiology procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1151–54 pmid:16687562
Abstract/FREE Full Text
7.↵
1. Joshi KC,
2. Beer-Furlan A,
3. Crowley RW, et al
. Transradial approach for neurointerventions: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:886–92 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015764 pmid:32152185
Abstract/FREE Full Text
8.↵
1. Li Y,
2. Chen SH,
3. Spiotta AM, et al
. Lower complication rates associated with transradial versus transfemoral flow diverting stent placement. J Neurointerv Surg 2021;13:91–95 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-015992 pmid:32487766
Abstract/FREE Full Text
9.↵
1. Catapano JS,
2. Fredrickson VL,
3. Fujii T, et al
. Complications of femoral versus radial access in neuroendovascular procedures with propensity adjustment. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:611–15 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015569 pmid:31843764
Abstract/FREE Full Text
10.↵
1. Zussman BM,
2. Tonetti DA,
3. Stone J, et al
. Maturing institutional experience with the transradial approach for diagnostic cerebral arteriography: overcoming the learning curve. J Neurointerv Surg 2019;11:1235–38 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014920 pmid:31030189
Abstract/FREE Full Text
11.↵
1. Shapiro SZ,
2. Sabacinski KA,
3. Mantripragada K, et al
. Access-site complications in mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a review of prospective trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:477–81 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6423 pmid:32079599
Abstract/FREE Full Text
12.↵
1. Khanna O,
2. Velagapudi L,
3. Das S, et al
. A comparison of radial versus femoral artery access for acute stroke interventions. J Neurosurg 2020 Nov 13. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.3171/2020.7.JNS201174 pmid:33186909
CrossRef PubMed
13.↵
1. Chen SH,
2. Snelling BM,
3. Sur S, et al
. Transradial versus transfemoral access for anterior circulation mechanical thrombectomy: comparison of technical and clinical outcomes. J Neurointerv Surg 2019;11:874–78 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014485 pmid:30670623
Abstract/FREE Full Text
14.↵
1. Khan NR,
2. Peterson J,
3. Dornbos D III., et al
. Predicting the degree of difficulty of the trans-radial approach in cerebral angiography. J Neurointerv Surg 2020 Aug 13. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016448 pmid:32792364
CrossRef PubMed
15.↵
1. Rajah GB,
2. Tso MK,
3. Dossani R, et al
. Transradial embolization of the left middle meningeal artery and accessory middle meningeal artery for treatment of subacute-chronic subdural hematoma. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:436 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015493 pmid:31937602
Abstract/FREE Full Text
16.↵
1. Shotar E,
2. Pouliquen G,
3. Premat K, et al
. CTA-based patient-tailored femoral or radial frontline access reduces the rate of catheterization failure in chronic subdural hematoma embolization. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:495–500 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6951
Abstract/FREE Full Text

In this issue

Download PDF

Email Article

Citation Tools

Purchase

Cited By...

No citing articles found.

More in this TOC Section

Show more LETTERS

[1] 1.↵
Valgimigli M,
Frigoli E,
Leonardi S, et al
. MATRIX Investigators. Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018;392:835–48 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31714-8 pmid:30153988
CrossRef PubMed

[2] Valgimigli M,

[3] Frigoli E,

[4] Leonardi S, et al

[5] 2.↵
Jolly SS,
Yusuf S,
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
CrossRef PubMed

[6] Jolly SS,

[7] Yusuf S,

[8] Cairns J, et al

[9] 3.↵
Almallouhi E,
Leary J,
Wessell J, et al
. Fast-track incorporation of the transradial approach in endovascular neurointervention. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:176–80 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015127 pmid:31300534
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[10] Almallouhi E,

[11] Leary J,

[12] Wessell J, et al

[13] 4.↵
Snelling BM,
Sur S,
Shah SS, et al
. RIVAL trial group. Transradial cerebral angiography: techniques and outcomes. J Neurointerv Surg 2018;10:874–81 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013584 pmid:21470671
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[14] Snelling BM,

[15] Sur S,

[16] Shah SS, et al

[17] 5.↵
Chivot C,
Bouzerar R,
Yzet T
. Transitioning to transradial access for cerebral aneurysm embolization. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:1947–53 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6234 pmid:31582386
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[18] Chivot C,

[19] Bouzerar R,

[20] Yzet T

[21] 6.↵
Layton KF,
Kallmes DF,
Cloft HJ
. The radial artery access site for interventional neuroradiology procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1151–54 pmid:16687562
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[22] Layton KF,

[23] Kallmes DF,

[24] Cloft HJ

[25] 7.↵
Joshi KC,
Beer-Furlan A,
Crowley RW, et al
. Transradial approach for neurointerventions: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:886–92 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015764 pmid:32152185
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[26] Joshi KC,

[27] Beer-Furlan A,

[28] Crowley RW, et al

[29] 8.↵
Li Y,
Chen SH,
Spiotta AM, et al
. Lower complication rates associated with transradial versus transfemoral flow diverting stent placement. J Neurointerv Surg 2021;13:91–95 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-015992 pmid:32487766
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[30] Li Y,

[31] Chen SH,

[32] Spiotta AM, et al

[33] 9.↵
Catapano JS,
Fredrickson VL,
Fujii T, et al
. Complications of femoral versus radial access in neuroendovascular procedures with propensity adjustment. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:611–15 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015569 pmid:31843764
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[34] Catapano JS,

[35] Fredrickson VL,

[36] Fujii T, et al

[37] 10.↵
Zussman BM,
Tonetti DA,
Stone J, et al
. Maturing institutional experience with the transradial approach for diagnostic cerebral arteriography: overcoming the learning curve. J Neurointerv Surg 2019;11:1235–38 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014920 pmid:31030189
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[38] Zussman BM,

[39] Tonetti DA,

[40] Stone J, et al

[41] 11.↵
Shapiro SZ,
Sabacinski KA,
Mantripragada K, et al
. Access-site complications in mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a review of prospective trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:477–81 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6423 pmid:32079599
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[42] Shapiro SZ,

[43] Sabacinski KA,

[44] Mantripragada K, et al

[45] 12.↵
Khanna O,
Velagapudi L,
Das S, et al
. A comparison of radial versus femoral artery access for acute stroke interventions. J Neurosurg 2020 Nov 13. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.3171/2020.7.JNS201174 pmid:33186909
CrossRef PubMed

[46] Khanna O,

[47] Velagapudi L,

[48] Das S, et al

[49] 13.↵
Chen SH,
Snelling BM,
Sur S, et al
. Transradial versus transfemoral access for anterior circulation mechanical thrombectomy: comparison of technical and clinical outcomes. J Neurointerv Surg 2019;11:874–78 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014485 pmid:30670623
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[50] Chen SH,

[51] Snelling BM,

[52] Sur S, et al

[53] 14.↵
Khan NR,
Peterson J,
Dornbos D III., et al
. Predicting the degree of difficulty of the trans-radial approach in cerebral angiography. J Neurointerv Surg 2020 Aug 13. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016448 pmid:32792364
CrossRef PubMed

[54] Khan NR,

[55] Peterson J,

[56] Dornbos D III., et al

[57] 15.↵
Rajah GB,
Tso MK,
Dossani R, et al
. Transradial embolization of the left middle meningeal artery and accessory middle meningeal artery for treatment of subacute-chronic subdural hematoma. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:436 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015493 pmid:31937602
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[58] Rajah GB,

[59] Tso MK,

[60] Dossani R, et al

[61] 16.↵
Shotar E,
Pouliquen G,
Premat K, et al
. CTA-based patient-tailored femoral or radial frontline access reduces the rate of catheterization failure in chronic subdural hematoma embolization. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:495–500 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6951
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[62] Shotar E,

[63] Pouliquen G,

[64] Premat K, et al

Main menu

User menu

Search

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Evolution of Radial Access in Neurointerventional Surgery

References

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Similar Articles

News and Updates

Resources

Opportunities

American Society of Neuroradiology

Main menu

User menu

Search

Evolution of Radial Access in Neurointerventional Surgery

References

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Jump to section

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Similar Articles

News and Updates

Resources

Opportunities

American Society of Neuroradiology