|
AbstractThe femoral artery is the preferred access route for neurointerventions. The transfemoral approach (TFA) offers advantages such as a large diameter and easy access. However, it also entails disadvantages such as patient discomfort and high risk of complications. Following the initial report of coronary angiography using the transradial approach (TRA) in 1989, cardiologists discovered the advantages of TRA over the TFA and gradually replaced it with the TRA. In 1997, Matsumoto et al. used the TRA for cerebral angiography and neurointervention. Thereafter, the adoption of TRA for neurointervention gradually increased and good outcomes were reported. However, despite these developments, the adoption rate of TRA is relatively low. We reviewed the relevant studies to increase the accessibility of TRA for neurointerventionists.
INTRODUCTIONThe transradial approach (TRA) was first introduced by a cardiologist for coronary angiography [37]. Previous studies, including the RIVAL (radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes) and MATRIX (radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome) trials, have provided evidence that TRA reduces morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, and costs, in addition to increasing patient satisfaction due to early mobilization compared to the transfemoral approach (TFA) [47,86]. Because of its safety and comfort, TRA has become the preferred technique for percutaneous cardiovascular interventions by most patients and physicians [54,66,87]. Neurointerventionists have extensive experience and familiarity with TFA, but TRA is minimally used due to a lack of familiarity and practical experience. The limitations associated with a large catheter, owing to the small diameter of the radial artery and absence of a specific radial device for neurointervention, make TRA unfavorable as a first-line approach. Consequently, TRA has not yet been widely adopted for neurointervention.
Despite the existing limitations, TRA continues to be used in neurointerventions. Levy et al. [60] reported 132 cases of cerebral angiography using TRA and suggested that TRA could safely replace TFA. TRA has been used not only for cerebral angiography but also for other endovascular treatments, such as aneurysm coiling, flow diversion stent insertion, onyx embolization, carotid artery stenting (CAS), and mechanical thrombectomy. This review discusses the technical skills, detailed applications, advantages, limitations, and complications associated with TRA to improve its awareness among neurointerventionists (Fig. 1).
ANATOMY OF THE RADIAL ARTERYThe right subclavian artery originates from the aortic arch via the innominate artery. The subclavian artery branches further into the vertebral artery, internal thoracic artery, thyrocervical trunk, and costocervical trunk and passes along the lateral margin of the first rib to become the axillary artery. The axillary artery is divided into three parts : the superior thoracic artery branches in the 1st part; the thoracoacromial artery and lateral thoracic artery branch in the 2nd part; and the subscapular artery, anterior humeral circumflex artery, and posterior humeral circumflex artery branch in the 3rd part. The axillary artery passes through the lower margin of the teres major muscle to become the brachial artery.
The deep brachial, superior ulnar collateral, and inferior ulnar collateral arteries arise from the brachial artery. The brachial artery passes through the cubital fossa and bifurcates into the ulnar and radial arteries (Fig. 2A). The ulnar artery runs along the ulna in the medial side of the forearm, and the radial artery runs along the radius in the radial side of the forearm. The ulnar artery gives rise to the common interosseous artery in the proximal portion and ends in the superficial palmar arch. The radial artery gives off the radial recurrent artery, palmar carpal branch, and superficial palmar branch, which anastomoses with the superficial palmar arch and terminates in the hand to form the deep palmar arch.
ANATOMY OF THE AXILLARY ARTERYKnowledge of the branches and course of the axillary artery is necessary to avoid wire perforation during retrograde catheterization. The axillary artery starts from the lateral border of the first rib as a direct continuation of the subclavian artery and is divided into three segments. Distally, the axillary artery continues as the brachial artery at the lateral edge of the teres major muscle tendon. The first portion of the axillary artery runs from the lateral edge of the first rib to the superior border of pectoralis minor. It only has a single branch in this portion, the superior thoracic artery. The second part begins at the upper border of the pectoralis minor muscle and ends at the lower border of the pectoralis minor muscle. It has two branches, the thoracoacromial artery and lateral thoracic artery. The third portion begins at the lower border of the pectoralis minor muscle and ends at the lateral border of the teres major muscle. It gives off three branches in this portion, the subscapular artery and the anterior and posterior humeral circumflex arteries (Fig. 2B).
ABERRANT RIGHT SUBCLAVIAN ARTERY (ARSA) AND BRACHIOCEPHALIC (RIGHT INNOMINATE) ARTERY TORTUOSITYARSA is a rare anatomical variation that occurs in 0.16% to 1.8% of the population [13,57,70], in which the right subclavian artery arises directly from the posterior aspect of the aorta instead of originating from the brachiocephalic artery and has a retroesophageal course to the right thoracic outlet. The right vertebral artery almost always arises from the right subclavian artery, but occasionally the right vertebral artery can arise from the right common carotid artery (CCA). The presence of an ARSA significantly increases the difficulty of transradial catheterization of the aortic arch, and often requires switching to the TFA.
Furthermore, the presence of a severely tortuous course and multiple curves of the right subclavian artery and brachiocephalic artery makes vessel selection of the carotid arteries more difficult because of a reduction in torquability of the wire or catheter and difficulty in crossing a guiding catheter [50]. To overcome the difficulty in maneuvering the catheter through severely tortuous arteries during TRA, thicker guide wires (0.038 inch wire) can be used to straighten the tortuous vessels, allowing the guiding catheter to gain sufficient support and lower resistance.
PATIENT SELECTIONBefore performing a neurointervention via TRA, a procedural plan should be established by considering patient-specific factors. The most important patient-specific factors are the vascular anatomy of the forearm, diameter of the radial artery, aortic arch configuration, procedure to be performed, and the patient’s medical and social history. The vascular anatomy of the forearm can vary from patient to patient [91]. For example, there could be a rudimentary radial artery with three roots, replacement of the radial artery by the anterior interosseous artery, lower division of the radial artery, and lower division of the radial artery with a double recurrent radial artery. Performing TRA may be difficult if the radial artery is hypoplastic or a loop is formed in the pathway.
The mean diameter of the radial artery is reportedly 2.38-3.1 mm [40,55]. The diameter of the radial artery is relatively smaller in women than men (approximately 2.8 mm and 3.2 mm, respectively), making it technically challenging to use the TRA [46,55,92]. While planning the surgery, it should be noted that the small diameter of the radial artery compared to the femoral artery limits the use of devices with a large caliber. To overcome this limitation, topical application of 30 mg lidocaine ointment and 40 mg nitroglycerin cream or subcutaneous administration of nitroglycerin before radial artery puncture could help in significantly increasing the diameter of the radial artery and enhancing the TRA success rate [11,31]. When a spasm occurs in the radial artery due to stimulation during puncture, it can be released by injecting nitroglycerin through the sheath.
The configuration of the aortic arch can influence the selection of target vessels. In contrast to the TFA, selecting the left vessel in the TRA is challenging. Selecting the left vertebral artery is generally problematic because of the angle and distance between the innominate and left subclavian arteries. Factors that complicate the selection of the left internal carotid artery (ICA) for TRA include the aortic arch type, height of the right subclavian artery, turn angle of the left CCA, distance between the innominate artery and left CCA, angulation of the right subclavian artery, and angulation of the left subclavian artery [22].
TRA is not recommended in cases with the following medical history : patients who may require a radial artery donor for coronary artery bypass graft surgery or extracranial artery for intracranial artery bypass surgery, patients with end-stage renal disease, and the potential for developing future arteriovenous fistula or Raynaud’s phenomenon. The radial nerve descends parallel to the radial artery in the proximal third of the forearm, gradually approaches the mid-third of the forearm, and descends behind the brachioradialis muscle tendon in the distal third forearm. TRA is generally considered safe because the radial nerve is away from the puncture site; however, radial nerve palsy can rarely occur as a complication [44]. Therefore, the access route should be determined after considering the risk of palsy in patients who perform an activity in which manual use is essential (e.g., pianist, writer, surgeon). By considering these factors during planning, physicians can simultaneously maximize the TRA success rate and minimize complications. Additionally, it should be noted that TFA may be required when the risk associated with TRA is considered high.
ROOM SETUP AND PROCEDURE OF THE TRAThe right radial artery is commonly used because of operator convenience and easy navigation of the catheter into the CCA and ICA. During this procedure, the patient is placed in the supine position and an arm extension board is inserted under the right arm. The patient’s arm can be positioned in several ways. Abducting the arm to 70-90° enables easier navigation to the subclavian artery. However, this may make catheter exchange uncomfortable and increase the risk of the catheter falling off the table. Consequently, surgeons prefer to abduct the arm to 15-20°. The wrist is extended using a towel roll or folded sheet, and the puncture site is sterilized and draped. For local anesthesia, lidocaine (1-1.5 mL) is injected into the subcutaneous tissue near the puncture site. A puncture can be attempted under ultrasound guidance or palpation of the radial artery. Accessing the radial artery under ultrasound guidance improves the success rate compared to access under palpation [11,53]. A 20- or 21-gauge needle or micropuncture kit is then introduced into the radial artery using the Seldinger or through-and-through technique. Subsequently, a 0.018 or 0.025-inch hydrophilic microguidewire is advanced into the distal radial artery and a hydrophilic 5- to 8-Fr sheath with a tapered dilator is inserted along the microguidewire [5]. Since a 6-Fr guiding catheter is generally suitable for neurointervention, a 6-Fr sheath is often used to reduce complications associated with the radial artery [5,38,83]. After removing the dilatator, antispasmodic agents (verapamil, nitroglycerin, or nicardipine) are slowly administered through the sheath before introducing the catheter [59]. Roadmap or angiography is used to evaluate the patency of the radial artery, vascular anomalies, and anastomosis of the ulnar artery.
The guiding catheter is coaxially navigated into the subclavian artery over a 125 cm Simmons 2 catheter and 180 cm J-shaped 0.035-inch hydrophilic guidewire. A Simmons curve can be constructed in three ways. The first method for creating a Simmons curve is to place the guidewire in the descending aorta and then advance the catheter over the wire until the second curve is positioned under the apex of the arch. After retracting the guidewire, the catheter is turned forward or backward to create a Simmons curve. The second method involves bouncing the guidewire off the aortic valve and tracing the catheter using the guidewire. However, in some patients with insufficient or unstable valves, wires or catheters may pass through the valves and reach the left ventricle. Cardiac monitoring is required because arrhythmias may occur. The final method, which can be used to approach the right vertebral artery, right CCA, or left CCA with a bovine arch, involves navigating the guidewire directly into the target vessel without reforming the Simmons catheter. Thus, 4-vessel catheterization is possible. However, selecting the left vertebral artery may be challenging depending on the relationship between the left subclavian artery and orifice of the left vertebral artery. After placing the Simmons catheter in the target vessel, the guiding catheter approaches the target vessel through the catheter. During this process, the Simmons catheter may be pulled back because of the rigidity of the guiding catheter; however, this issue can be overcome by using a 0.038-inch guidewire which provides more strength and support (Fig. 3).
After completing the endovascular treatment, the sheath is removed and bleeding is stopped. When performing hemostasis on the radial artery, minimal pressure should be applied to reduce the rate of radial artery occlusion. Gentle manual compression at the access site for 15-20 minutes is recommended. Several types of wristband devices are used for radial compression to facilitate hemostasis. These devices are placed 1-2 cm proximal to the access site and compressed for 2-6 hours. VasoStat Hemostasis Device (Forge Medical, Bethlehem, PA, USA) presses the puncture site with a convex oval surface with minimal pressure. In contrast, TR Band (Terumo, Toyko, Japan) and udeSync (Merit, Malvern, PA, USA) uses a balloon to deliver compressive forces over a large area near the puncture site. Gauzes with elastic bandages can be used to control bleeding. If radial artery occlusion is suspected upon removal of the hemostatic device, temporary compression of the ipsilateral ulnar artery may help in recanalization [10].
SPECIFIC TREATMENTAneurysmEndovascular treatment options for an intracranial aneurysm include coil embolization with variations, insertion of a flow-diverting stent (FDS), and embolization with a flow disruptor [93]. Alkhars et al. [5] performed a meta-analysis of 24 studies on aneurysm treatment, including 1283 cases (85.9%) of TRA and 122 cases (8.2%) of distal TRA. Among these, 18 studies consisting of 1061 cases were analyzed. The treatment methods were as follows : 376 cases were treated with simple coil, 104 cases with balloon-assisted coil, 127 cases with stent-assisted coil, 451 cases with FDS, 32 cases with FDS with a coil, 50 cases with a flow disruptor, one case underwent parent artery occlusion, and one case was treated with a pulse rider. The success rate ranged from 79.59% to 98.25%, and the crossover rate to TFA was 7.1%. The reasons for conversion to TFA were tortuosity of the ICA in 11.5% patients, radial artery spasm in 10.3%, absence of preprocedural imaging in 10.3%, acute angle between CCA and left subclavian artery in 6.9%, and occlusion of the radial artery in 4.6% patients. The thromboembolic complication rate was 0.5%, hemorrhagic complication rate was 0.5%, and access site complication rate was 1.8%. The success and low complication rates of TRA are considered acceptable for endovascular treatment.
There are several challenges to treating aneurysms using the TRA. Difficulty in accessing the radial artery, radial artery spasm, unfavorable vascular anatomy, and lack of distal support make the treatment of aneurysms via TRA more difficult [5,6]. Ultrasonography, sufficient use of spasmolytic medication, preoperative vascular imaging, careful planning, and accumulated experience may help in solving these obstacles.
Embolization of cerebral aneurysms through the distal TRA has been attempted previously. In the TRA, the puncture is attempted near the styloid process of the radius. In distal TRA, the radial artery is approached at the anatomical snuff box. Since distal TRA involves puncturing at a site distal to the superficial palmar arch, anterograde flow through the superficial palmar arch is maintained even if vessel injury occurs, and the risk of retrograde thrombus formation in the forearm is low. Chivot et al. [21] reported the results of embolization through distal TRA, showing a crossover rate to TFA of 1.6% and total complication rate of 6.6%. In their study, simple coil embolization was performed in 45.9%, balloon-assisted coil in 36.1%, stent-assisted coil in 13.1%, and FDS in 4.9% of cases.
A stable catheter is critical for the successful delivery and placement of a FDS for treating intracranial aneurysms. The deployment of a FDS often requires a significant forward loading force because of its rigidity and braided construction. This is achieved using a large-bore access system or an intermediate catheter for additional support. Lack of catheter support and radial artery vasospasm have been cited as the most common reasons for avoiding TRA. Nevertheless, a few studies have overcome these limitations and reported successful outcomes, with good deployment rates and low access site complications and femoral crossover rates (Table 1) [20,51,58,62,90].
The first case report of FDS insertion through the TRA was published in 2013 for a patient with a challenging type III aortic arch anatomy, and the first large case series was published in 2019 [20,28]. As mentioned above, the precise and controlled delivery of a large and rigid catheter to the distal deployment site is critical. The following methodology can provide adequate guidance : first, if the diameter of the radial artery is greater than 2.5 mm, a 6-Fr sheath can be placed initially, and the spasmolytic agent can be injected through the sheath. Subsequently, under road map guidance, the sheath can be exchanged for a 0.088" inner diameter (ID) catheter (2.24 mm), which is introduced into the axillary artery without a sheath [51]. Second, if the diameter of the radial artery is less than 2.5 mm, the 6-Fr sheath can be placed into the radial artery. Subsequently, a 6-Fr guiding catheter can be inserted into the sheath or the sheath can be replaced with an intermediate catheter (ID of 0.072", 0.070", or 0.060") to navigate directly over the guidewire into the target vessel without a guiding catheter. After locating the guiding catheter in the target vessel, the 027" microcatheter can be advanced over the microwire across the aneurysm neck, and the stent can be deployed through the microcatheter.
Although the success rate of TRA is 80-100%, a subset of patients may require switching to TFA after attempting TRA. The reasons for TRA failure included severe radial artery spasm, acute angle of left CCA origin, and unconquerable tortuosity of the left CCA and ICA. Li et al. [62] compared 134 patients who underwent FDS deployment via the TRA and 2151 patients who underwent FDS placement via the TFA in a study involving 14 centers. In their study, the crossover rate from TRA to TFA was 8.63%, and access site complications and overall complications were significantly lower with TRA (0% vs. 2.48%, p=0.039; 3.73% vs. 9.02%, p=0.035, respectively). It is expected that better results could be achieved with increased operator experience, improved technical understanding, and development of a dedicated radial catheter system.
Recently, embolization with a flow disruptor, enabled by the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) (Sequent Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA), has emerged as an alternative treatment option for intracranial aneurysms [93]. WEB is gaining popularity for treating wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms because it does not require administration of antiplatelet agents. However, the use of TRA with the WEB is limited due to the requirement of a stiff catheter to deliver the device. There are several case reports on WEB embolization through the TRA that showed good outcomes [3,12,71,84]. Adeeb et al. [2] compared TRA and TFA for WEB embolization and demonstrated no significant difference between the two approaches in terms of the procedure time, fluoroscopy time, outcomes, and complications.
Thrombectomy for acute ischemic strokeThe efficacy and safety of mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke have been demonstrated in several randomized controlled trials over the past decade [9,39]. TFA is still used as the primary approach for mechanical thrombectomy. However, access through the TFA is sometimes challenging because of a complex aortic arch and severe carotid artery tortuosity, which prolong the reperfusion time and lead to poor outcomes.
Although positive results have been reported in a few studies, mechanical thrombectomy through the TRA has not been widely adopted because of the limited usefulness of large catheters owing to the small size of the radial artery. The mechanical thrombectomy technique consists of three components : a combined stent retriever, aspiration catheter, and balloon-guided catheter. When performing mechanical thrombectomy via the TRA, a large-bore aspiration catheter and balloon-guided catheter is limited with an 8-Fr system [82]. It is known that the larger the diameter of the aspiration catheter, the larger the contact area with the thrombi, which lead to successful reperfusion [4,26]. However, because most large-bore aspiration catheters require an 8-Fr system, their use may be limited. Waqas et al. [89] performed mechanical thrombectomy with a sheathless transradial balloon guide catheter to overcome these restrictions and showed a crossover rate of 11.8% and TICI score ≥2b of 96.7%.
Recently, several studies have compared TRA and TFA in patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy and demonstrated the advantages of TRA over TFA, including puncture-reperfusion times and successful reperfusion rates (Table 2) [8,75,82,89]. Phillips et al. [75] compared 245 patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy via the TFA with 130 patients treated via the TRA. Their results demonstrated a TICI score ≥2b of 94.6% with TRA and 94.3% with TFA, with complication rates of 0% and 6.5%, respectively [75]. A meta-analysis of eight trials revealed that a TICI ≥2b was achieved in 94.7% patients and a modified Rankin scale at 90 days was attained in 49.8% patients treated via the TRA, showing no significant difference with those treated via the TFA [65]. In terms of the reperfusion time, TRA tends to be generally faster than the TFA [8,75,82,89]. A literature review suggested that TRA tended to be faster by 5-7 minutes, and Maud et al. [67] concluded that TRA was significantly faster than TFA (29.2±17.6 vs. 63.9±56.7 minutes, p=0.08). Rapid recanalization with a minimal number of passages positively affects the outcome of mechanical thrombectomy [7,36,52]. Therefore, consideration of TRA as an alternative route should be evaluated based on the vascular anatomy of patients with acute ischemic stroke.
CASSince Castriota et al. [17] introduced the possibility of CAS through TRA in 1999, several small studies have reported procedural success with low complication rates of using the TRA for CAS [32,61,69]. In 2012, Etxegoien et al. [30] performed CAS through the TRA in 382 patients and reported a success rate of 91% and access site complication rate of 0%. A review on studies on CAS through the TRA revealed that the success rate was 90-100%, complication rate was 0-7.7%, and rate of major complications, such as stroke, death, and myocardial infarction was 0-4.4% [29]. Although the success rate is low and complications are high compared to TFA, the results may be considered acceptable [45]. Table 3 summarizes the success and complication rates of five studies on CAS through the TRA [29,30,45,68,77].
The vascular anatomy of the carotid artery and aortic arch affects the procedure. The success rates of the right and left procedures differ because it is difficult to access the left ICA through the TRA. Etxegoien et al. [30] reported a success rate of 93% for the right ICA and 88% for the left ICA in a 6-year retrospective study. In a multicenter randomized control study, Ruzsa et al. [77] demonstrated a statistically significant crossover of left-sided lesions from the radial access group to the femoral access group. In TFA, it is recognized that the success rate decreases and procedure time gets prolonged in cases with type III and bovine arch anatomies [15,81]. In contrast, when using the TRA, CAS in cases with type III and bovine arch anatomies is straightforward. Gao et al. [35] reported a success rate of 100% for TRA and 90% for TFA in a study of patients with only type III and bovine arch anatomies. Therefore, it is necessary to check whether the TRA is an appropriate approach by examining the aortic arch and carotid artery before the procedure.
In the RADCAR trial, it was reported that the radiation dose in the TRA was significantly higher than that in the TFA during CAS [77]. However, considering factors such as the operator volume and learning curve that affect the radiation dose, follow-up studies are required to draw definite conclusions.
Intracranial arteriovenous shuntResearch on TRA treatment of intracranial arteriovenous shunts, such as arteriovenous malformations or arteriovenous fistulas, is limited. Most studies have reported TRA as a part of the treatment or in a small number of cases. Joshi et al. [48] conducted a systematic review of 21 studies on neurointervention through the TRA. Among the 21 studies, an arteriovenous shunt was reported in five studies, involving a total of 30 out of 1342 patients. Feeder embolization was successfully performed using the TRA in a small number of cases.
The treatment of arteriovenous fistulas can be performed via the transarterial or transvenous approach. When a transvenous approach is planned, access through the femoral artery and vein in one groin is smooth; however, access through the cephalic vein with the TRA in one forearm is relatively challenging. Tan et al. [85] presented a case of cavernous sinus dural arteriovenous fistula treated with access through the radial artery and median cubital vein. In this study, the authors revealed that the approach through the cephalic vein may encounter resistance while passing through the clavi-pectoral fascia. The medial cubital vein is located superficially and may offer the advantage of hemostasis and low risk of arteriovenous fistula. Abecassis et al. [1] conducted a multicenter study on an approach to the inferior petrosal sinus from the upper extremity. In their study, the most common route was the right basilic vein and the crossover rate to TFA was 3.4%. Because the endovascular treatment of intracranial arteriovenous shunts requires various treatment methods and detailed vascular access, additional studies on the usefulness of TRA are needed.
ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONSTRA offers five advantages over the TFA [16,19,47,54]. The first is superior patient comfort and satisfaction. After performing the procedure via the TFA, it is necessary to rest in the supine position for 4-6 hours. This posture restriction causes inconvenience to conscious patients in terms of restricting activities such as toileting and eating [63]. However, since hemostasis is relatively easy in TRA, there are no restrictions on posture and ambulation after the procedure [88]. The second and third benefits are reduced hospital stay and cost. A reduction in the postoperative rest and observation periods can decrease the hospitalization period and associated medical expenses. The fourth advantage is decreased access route complications [25]. The RIVAL trial showed that the risk of major bleeding at the access site was 0.2% for TRA and 0.3% for TFA [47]. In a study comparing TRA and TFA in cerebral angiography, Wang et al. [88] showed that the rates of symptomatic stroke, puncture site hematoma, pulmonary embolism, pseudoaneurysm, and arteriovenous fistula were significantly increased in TFA. Finally, TRA may be easy and safe in obese patients [88].
However, this approach also has some limitations. The first is that TRA is technically more challenging than the TFA [88]. TRA is generally known to have a longer learning curve. The smaller diameter of the radial artery compared to the femoral artery, higher vulnerability of the radial artery to spasm, tortuosity of the radial-brachial artery, subclavian artery to the aortic arch curve, and non-intuitive Simmons catheter movement make TRA a difficult technique [74]. Liu et al. [64] reported that the learning curve of TRA was steeper than that of TFA. However, Hess et al. [42] demonstrated faster adaptation to TRA among novices than among experienced operators [64]. The second disadvantage is that the diameter of the radial artery is smaller than that of the femoral artery. Owing to the small diameter, there are limitations regarding the catheters and techniques that can be used without causing vessel injury. Large-diameter catheters can be inserted after administering vasodilators; however, care must be taken to avoid vascular damage. Finally, it is challenging to select the left vertebral artery or ICA. Zussman et al. [94] reported that success rates of selecting the left ICA and vertebral artery were 89% and 59%, respectively. Target vessel selection in TRA can be attempted through various combinations of catheters and wires; however, selecting the left vertebral artery, in particular, remains challenging.
COMPLICATIONS AND MANAGEMENTAlthough TRA has a low complication rate, it may lead to complications such as radial artery spasm, vessel perforation, local hematoma, radial artery occlusion, and radial artery pseudoaneurysm. However, most complications can be successfully treated with conservative management without permanent disability.
Radial artery spasm is a relatively common complication of TRA that can cause patient discomfort, ischemia, and limited access to devices. Radial artery spasms reduce the vessel diameter, which can block catheter entry, trap the catheter during the procedure, and make catheter manipulation difficult, resulting in procedure failure. Risk factors for radial artery spasms include anatomical variations of the radial artery, small vessel diameter, vessel tortuosity, female sex, younger age, large-diameter arterial sheath, multiple punctures, and long procedure time [43]. To reduce the incidence of radial artery spasms, reassuring the patient by providing sufficient information in advance and administering vasodilator drugs is important. If radial artery spasms occur during the procedure, intravenous pain or sedatives (such as morphine, fentanyl, or midazolam) can be administered to relieve pain and anxiety, and vasodilators, including nitroglycerin, verapamil, or nifedipine, can be administered through the sheath [14]. However, if the spasm persists, nitroglycerin may be injected subcutaneously along the radial artery. Finally, the operator needs to be patient and not forcefully manipulate the catheter to avoid vessel damage.
The operator should be familiar with the anatomical variations of the radial artery, such as radial loops and high radial insertion (separation of the radial artery from the elbow or armpit), to reduce the risk of vessel perforation. Most vascular variations can be safely navigated; however, a lack of knowledge, ignorance, or carelessness about the variant nature of vessels can increase the risk of perforation. If perforation of the radial artery is suspected, radial angiography should be performed immediately, and the procedure should be continued by advancing a catheter (diagnostic or guide) across the perforation site to seal the perforation site and control bleeding. In cases of an expanding hematoma, a blood pressure cuff should be rapidly inflated at the hematoma site to 20 mmHg below the systolic pressure and deflated every 15 minutes until the bleeding is stable [79]. If hemostasis fails, there is a sporadic risk of compartment syndrome, which requires a vascular surgery consultation for a potential myofascial incision and decompression. Additionally, due to the shape of the Simmons catheter, it is prone to knotting or kinking during excessive manipulation, particularly in very tortuous subclavian arteries. In such cases, gentle rotation of the catheter counterclockwise or clockwise to loosen the knot, advancing a stiff hydrophilic wire or long sheath through the kink, and snaring the catheter through the TFA may be considered [23,70].
Among the complications of the TRA, radial artery occlusion is clinically asymptomatic because of the anastomosis with the superficial palmar artery, which originates from the ulnar artery. The RIVAL trial (randomized, multicenter) revealed that radial artery occlusion was confirmed by ultrasound in only 0.2% of patients (n=6/3507), and none of the patients required surgical treatment [18]. Kassimis et al. [49] reported that up to 50% of radial artery occlusions may spontaneously recanalize within 1-3 months. However, continued radial artery occlusion may limit the use of TRA in future interventions.
The risk factors for radial artery occlusion include a long procedure time, large-diameter sheath, small radial artery size, higher number of puncture attempts, long compression time, and high compression pressure [24]. A systematic review reported no significant difference in the incidence of radial artery occlusion between 5-Fr and 6-Fr catheters. However, the use of 5-Fr sheath showed greater benefit due to a higher proportion of women with a small radial artery diameter in the 5-Fr group [76]. Another study claimed that the incidence of radial artery occlusion increased with an increase in the ID of the radial artery to outer diameter of sheath ratio (4% vs. 13%, ratio <1.0 vs. >1.07, respectively) [78].
An increase in the number of radial artery puncture attempts increases the risk of radial artery occlusion. Ultrasound-guided puncture and subcutaneous nitrate injection can reduce the number of puncture attempts [80]. Additionally, prophylactic heparin significantly reduces the incidence of radial artery occlusion in a dose-dependent manner, regardless of intravenous or arterial administration [72]. Ipsilateral ulnar artery compression may also reduce radial artery occlusion. Two randomized controlled studies have shown that ulnar artery compression reduced radial artery occlusion on day 30 from 3.0% to 0.9% and 5% to 0%, respectively, without hand ischemia when compared to the standard method [56,73].
CONCLUSIONUsing the TRA poses a challenge for neurointerventionists. Due to numerous obstacles associated with the TRA, acquiring relevant knowledge and sufficient experience is necessary. Although performing neurointervention through the TRA has limitations, it also offers several advantages, such as patient comfort and a low rate of complications. It is crucial to know the advantages and disadvantages of the TRA and TFA and apply them appropriately on a case-by-case basis. Future research in the field of TRA for neurovascular interventions should focus on refining the training methods for acquiring technical skills, developing specialized devices, optimizing patient selection criteria, exploring combination approaches, conducting cost-effectiveness analyses, and performing comparative studies. These efforts will contribute to a deeper understanding of the potential benefits of TRA, its limitations, and its role in improving patient care and outcomes in neurointerventional procedures.
NotesFig. 2.A : Angiography via the right radial artery. White arrowhead indicates the brachial artery. Black arrowhead shows the radial artery. Black arrow indicates the ulnar artery. White arrow indicates the common interosseous artery. Two white arrows indicate the recurrent ulnar artery and the two black arrows show the recurrent radial artery. B : Angiographic anatomy of the axillary artery with branches. ![]() Fig. 3.General concept and room sep-up for transradial neurointervention. The right arm is positioned in 15° to 20° abduction on a removable radial board with a soft foam pad for patient comfort, and this positioning matches that of the patient’s groin in the transfemoral approach (TFA). Thus, the drapes and catheters can be kept similar to those used in TFA, which allows the operator to easily manipulate the wire and catheters in the same customary fashion as during the TFA. After placing the arm on the board, the wrist is placed in the supine position and slightly hyperextended by keeping a soft roll or folded sheet underneath for supporting the extended wrist. This brings the radial artery closer to the skin and provides gentle tension in the overlying skin, making it easier to puncture [33]. ![]() Table 1.Summary of studies on flow diverting stent placement through TRA
Table 2.Summary of 4 studies on Mechanical thrombectomy through TRA
Table 3.Summary of 5 studies on CAS through TRA
References1. Abecassis IJ, Saini V, Phillips TJ, Osbun JW, Martínez-Galdámez M, Nada A, et al : Upper extremity transvenous access for neuroendovascular procedures: an international multicenter case series. J Neurointerv Surg 13 : 357-362, 2021
![]() ![]() 2. Adeeb N, Dibas M, Amireh A, Kandregula S, Cuellar H : Comparison of transradial and transfemoral access for the Woven EndoBridge embolization of intracranial aneurysms: a single-center experience. Interv Neuroradiol 28 : 531-537, 2022
![]() ![]() ![]() 3. Al Saiegh F, Mouchtouris N, Sweid A, Chalouhi N, Theofanis T, Ghosh R, et al : Placement of the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device via distal transradial access in the anatomical snuffbox: a technical note. J Clin Neurosci 69 : 261-264, 2019
![]() ![]() 4. Alawieh A, Chatterjee AR, Vargas J, Chaudry MI, Lena J, Turner R, et al : Lessons learned over more than 500 stroke thrombectomies using ADAPT with increasing aspiration catheter size. Neurosurgery 86 : 61-70, 2020
![]() ![]() ![]() 5. Alkhars H, Haq W, Al-Tayeb A, Sigounas D : Feasibility and safety of transradial aneurysm embolization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 165 : e110-e127, 2022
![]() ![]() 6. Almallouhi E, Al Kasab S, Sattur MG, Lena J, Jabbour PM, Sweid A, et al : Incorporation of transradial approach in neuroendovascular procedures: defining benchmarks for rates of complications and conversion to femoral access. J Neurointerv Surg 12 : 1122-1126, 2020
![]() ![]() 7. Baek JH, Kim BM, Heo JH, Nam HS, Kim YD, Park H, et al : Number of stent retriever passes associated with futile recanalization in acute stroke. Stroke 49 : 2088-2095, 2018
![]() ![]() 8. Barranco-Pons R, Caamaño IR, Guillen AN, Chirife OS, Quesada H, Cardona P : Transradial versus transfemoral access for acute stroke endovascular thrombectomy: a 4-year experience in a high-volume center. Neuroradiology 64 : 999-1009, 2022
![]() ![]() ![]() 9. Berkhemer OA, Fransen PS, Beumer D, van den Berg LA, Lingsma HF, Yoo AJ, et al : A randomized trial of intraarterial treatment for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 372 : 11-20, 2015
![]() 10. Bernat I, Bertrand OF, Rokyta R, Kacer M, Pesek J, Koza J, et al : Efficacy and safety of transient ulnar artery compression to recanalize acute radial artery occlusion after transradial catheterization. Am J Cardiol 107 : 1698-1701, 2011
![]() ![]() 11. Beyer AT, Ng R, Singh A, Zimmet J, Shunk K, Yeghiazarians Y, et al : Topical nitroglycerin and lidocaine to dilate the radial artery prior to transradial cardiac catheterization: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial: the PRE-DILATE study. Int J Cardiol 168 : 2575-2578, 2013
![]() 12. Bhogal P, Chan N, Makalanda H, Wong K, Noblet J : Transradial Woven EndoBridge device to treat a ruptured basilar tip aneurysm under conscious sedation. Interv Neuroradiol 26 : 779-784, 2020
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 13. Brauner E, Lapidot M, Kremer R, Best LA, Kluger Y : Aberrant right subclavian artery- suggested mechanism for esophageal foreign body impaction: case report. World J Emerg Surg 6 : 12, 2011
![]() ![]() ![]() 14. Brunet MC, Chen SH, Peterson EC : Transradial access for neurointerventions: management of access challenges and complications. J Neurointerv Surg 12 : 82-86, 2020
![]() ![]() 15. Burzotta F, Nerla R, Pirozzolo G, Aurigemma C, Niccoli G, Leone AM, et al : Clinical and procedural impact of aortic arch anatomic variants in carotid stenting procedures. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 86 : 480-489, 2015
![]() ![]() 16. Campelo-Parada F, Carrié D, Bartorelli AL, Namiki A, Hovasse T, Kimura T, et al : Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention: MACE outcomes at long-term follow-up. J Invasive Cardiol 30 : 262-268, 2018
![]() 17. Castriota F, Cremonesi A, Manetti R, Lamarra M, Noera G : Carotid stenting using radial artery access. J Endovasc Surg 6 : 385-386, 1999
![]() ![]() ![]() 18. Cauley R, Wu WW, Doval A, Chaikof E, Ho KKL, Iorio ML : Identifying complications and optimizing consultations following transradial arterial access for cardiac procedures. Ann Vasc Surg 56 : 87-96, 2019
![]() ![]() 19. Chase AJ, Fretz EB, Warburton WP, Klinke WP, Carere RG, Pi D, 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 94 : 1019-1025, 2008
![]() ![]() 20. Chen SH, Snelling BM, Shah SS, Sur S, Brunet MC, Starke RM, et al : Transradial approach for flow diversion treatment of cerebral aneurysms: a multicenter study. J Neurointerv Surg 11 : 796-800, 2019
![]() ![]() 21. Chivot C, Bouzerar R, Yzet T : Distal radial access for cerebral aneurysm embolization. J Neuroradiol 49 : 380-384, 2022
![]() ![]() 22. Choi SW, Kim S, Kim H, Kim SR, Park IS : Anatomical predictors of difficult left internal carotid artery navigation in transradial access for neurointervention. J Neurosurg 139 : 157-164, 2022
![]() ![]() 23. Choi Y, Chung SB, Kim MS : Prevalence and anatomy of aberrant right subclavian artery evaluated by computed tomographic angiography at a single institution in Korea. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 62 : 175-182, 2019
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 24. Cubero JM, Lombardo J, Pedrosa C, Diaz-Bejarano D, Sanchez B, Fernandez V, et al : Radial compression guided by mean artery pressure versus standard compression with a pneumatic device (RACOMAP). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 73 : 467-472, 2009
![]() ![]() 25. Das S, Ramesh S, Velagapudi L, Sweid A, Gooch R, Tjoumakaris S, et al : Adoption of the transradial approach for neurointerventions: a national survey of current practitioners. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 30 : 105589, 2021
![]() ![]() 26. Delgado Almandoz JE, Kayan Y, Wallace AN, Tarrel RM, Fease JL, Scholz JM, et al : Larger ACE 68 aspiration catheter increases first-pass efficacy of ADAPT technique. J Neurointerv Surg 11 : 141-146, 2019
![]() ![]() 27. Dibas M, Adeeb N, Diestro JDB, Cuellar HH, Sweid A, Lay SV, et al : Transradial versus transfemoral access for embolization of intracranial aneurysms with the Woven EndoBridge device: a propensity score-matched study. J Neurosurg 137 : 1064-1071, 2022
![]() 28. Dietrich C, Hauck GH, Valvassori L, Hauck EF : Transradial access or Simmons shaped 8F guide enables delivery of flow diverters in patients with large intracranial aneurysms and type III aortic arch: technical case report. Neurosurgery 73(1 Suppl Operative):onsE111-onsE115; discussion 115-116, 2013
![]() 29. Erben Y, Meschia JF, Heck DV, Shawl FA, Mayorga-Carlin M, Howard G, et al : Safety of the transradial approach to carotid stenting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 99 : 814-821, 2022
![]() ![]() ![]() 30. Etxegoien N, Rhyne D, Kedev S, Sachar R, Mann T : The transradial approach for carotid artery stenting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 80 : 1081-1087, 2012
![]() ![]() 31. Fischman AM, Swinburne NC, Patel RS : A technical guide describing the use of transradial access technique for endovascular interventions. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 18 : 58-65, 2015
![]() ![]() 32. Folmar J, Sachar R, Mann T : Transradial approach for carotid artery stenting: a feasibility study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 69 : 355-361, 2007
![]() ![]() 33. Frangos C, Noble S : How to transform you into a radialist: tips and tricks. Part II. Cardiovasc Med 14 : 315-324, 2011
![]() 34. Fuga M, Tanaka T, Tachi R, Tomoto K, Okawa S, Teshigawara A, et al : Therapeutic efficacy and complications of radial versus femoral access in endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Neuroradiol J 36 : 442-452, 2023
![]() ![]() ![]() 35. Gao BL, Xu GQ, Wang ZL, Li TX, Wang YF, Liang XD, et al : Transradial stenting for carotid stenosis in patients with bovine type and type III aortic arch: experience in 28 patients. World Neurosurg 111 : e661-e667, 2018
![]() ![]() 36. García-Tornel Á, Requena M, Rubiera M, Muchada M, Pagola J, RodriguezLuna D, et al : When to stop. Stroke 50 : 1781-1788, 2019
![]() ![]() 37. Goland J, Domitrovic L, Doroszuk G, Garbugino S, Ypa P : Distal radial approach for neurointerventional diagnosis and therapy. Surg Neurol Int 10 : 211, 2019
![]() ![]() ![]() 38. Goland J, Doroszuk GF, Garbugino SL, Ypa MP : Transradial approach to treating endovascular cerebral aneurysms: case series and technical note. Surg Neurol Int 8 : 73, 2017
![]() ![]() ![]() 39. Goyal M, Menon BK, van Zwam WH, Dippel DW, Mitchell PJ, Demchuk AM, et al : Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials. Lancet 387 : 1723-1731, 2016
![]() ![]() 40. Habib J, Baetz L, Satiani B : Assessment of collateral circulation to the hand prior to radial artery harvest. Vasc Med 17 : 352-361, 2012
![]() ![]() ![]() 41. Hanaoka Y, Koyama JI, Ogiwara T, Fujii Y, Ito K, Horiuchi T : Feasibility and safety of radial-first approach with a radial-specific neurointerventional guiding sheath for intracranial aneurysm coiling in the anterior circulation. World Neurosurg 142 : e297-e306, 2020
![]() ![]() 42. Hess CN, Peterson ED, Neely ML, Dai D, Hillegass WB, Krucoff MW, 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 129 : 2277-2286, 2014
![]() ![]() ![]() 43. Ho HH, Jafary FH, Ong PJ : Radial artery spasm during transradial cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention: incidence, predisposing factors, prevention, and management. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 13 : 193-195, 2012
![]() ![]() 44. Jang AY, Yu J, Oh PC, Lee K, Kang WC, Han SH, et al : Radial motor nerve palsy following transradial coronary intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 11 : e007203, 2018
![]() ![]() 45. Jaroenngarmsamer T, Bhatia KD, Kortman H, Orru E, Krings T : Procedural success with radial access for carotid artery stenting: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurointerv Surg 12 : 87-93, 2020
![]() ![]() 46. Jo KW, Park SM, Kim SD, Kim SR, Baik MW, Kim YW : Is transradial cerebral angiography feasible and safe? A single center’s experience. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 47 : 332-337, 2010
![]() ![]() ![]() 47. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, Niemelä K, Xavier D, Widimsky P, 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 377 : 1409-1420, 2011
![]() 48. Joshi KC, Beer-Furlan A, Crowley RW, Chen M, Munich SA : Transradial approach for neurointerventions: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurointerv Surg 12 : 886-892, 2020
![]() ![]() ![]() 49. Kassimis G, Channon KM, Hahalis G, Poulimenos L, Manolis A, Banning AP, et al : Transradial arterial access catheter knots: how to stay out of trouble. Minerva Cardioangiol 63 : 449-456, 2015
![]() 50. Khan NR, Peterson J, Dornbos Iii D, Nguyen V, Goyal N, Torabi R, et al : Predicting the degree of difficulty of the trans-radial approach in cerebral angiography. J Neurointerv Surg 13 : 552-558, 2021
![]() ![]() 51. Khandelwal P, Majmundar N, Rodriguez GJ, Patel P, Dodson V, Singla A, et al : Dual-center study comparing transradial and transfemoral approaches for flow diversion treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Brain Circ 7 : 65-70, 2021
![]() ![]() ![]() 52. Kharouba R, Gavriliuc P, Yaghmour NE, Gomori JM, Cohen JE, Leker RR : Number of stentriever passes and outcome after thrombectomy in stroke. J Neuroradiol 46 : 327-330, 2019
![]() ![]() 53. Kiberenge RK, Ueda K, Rosauer B : Ultrasound-guided dynamic needle tip positioning technique versus palpation technique for radial arterial cannulation in adult surgical patients: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg 126 : 120-126, 2018
![]() ![]() 54. Kok MM, Weernink MGM, von Birgelen C, Fens A, van der Heijden LC, van Til JA : Patient preference for radial versus femoral vascular access for elective coronary procedures: the PREVAS study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 91 : 17-24, 2018
![]() ![]() ![]() 55. Kotowycz MA, Johnston KW, Ivanov J, Asif N, Almoghairi AM, Choudhury A, et al : Predictors of radial artery size in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization: insights from the Good Radial Artery Size Prediction (GRASP) study. Can J Cardiol 30 : 211-216, 2014
![]() ![]() 56. Koutouzis MJ, Maniotis CD, Avdikos G, Tsoumeleas A, Andreou C, Kyriakides ZS : ULnar artery transient compression facilitating radial artery patent hemostasis (ULTRA): a novel technique to reduce radial artery occlusion after transradial coronary catheterization. J Invasive Cardiol 28 : 451-454, 2016
![]() 57. Krupiński M, Irzyk M, Moczulski Z, Banyś R, Dwojak I, Urbańczyk-Zawadzka M : CT evaluation of aberrant right subclavian artery: anatomy and clinical implications. Cardiol Young 29 : 128-132, 2019
![]() ![]() 58. Kühn AL, Satti SR, Eden T, de Macedo Rodrigues K, Singh J, Massari F, et al : Anatomic snuffbox (distal radial artery) and radial artery access for treatment of intracranial aneurysms with FDA-approved flow diverters. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 42 : 487-492, 2021
![]() ![]() ![]() 59. Kwok CS, Rashid M, Fraser D, Nolan J, Mamas M : Intra-arterial vasodilators to prevent radial artery spasm: a systematic review and pooled analysis of clinical studies. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 16 : 484-490, 2015
![]() ![]() 60. Levy EI, Boulos AS, Fessler RD, Bendok BR, Ringer AJ, Kim SH, et al : Transradial cerebral angiography: an alternative route. Neurosurgery 51 : 335-340; discussion 340-342, 2002
![]() ![]() 61. Levy EI, Kim SH, Bendok BR, Qureshi AI, Guterman LR, Hopkins LN : Transradial stenting of the cervical internal carotid artery: technical case report. Neurosurgery 53 : 448-451; discussion 451-452, 2003
![]() ![]() ![]() 62. Li Y, Chen SH, Spiotta AM, Jabbour P, Levitt MR, Kan P, et al : Lower complication rates associated with transradial versus transfemoral flow diverting stent placement. J Neurointerv Surg 13 : 91-95, 2021
![]() ![]() 63. Lindner SM, McNeely CA, Amin AP : The value of transradial: impact on patient satisfaction and health care economics. Interv Cardiol Clin 9 : 107-115, 2020
![]() ![]() 64. Liu Y, Wen X, Bai J, Ji X, Zhi K, Qu L : A single-center, randomized, controlled comparison of the transradial vs transfemoral approach for cerebral angiography: a learning curve analysis. J Endovasc Ther 26 : 717-724, 2019
![]() ![]() ![]() 65. Marlowe FJA, Powell E : Evaluating the safety and efficacy of transradial approach for thrombectomy in posterior circulation stroke. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Interv Neuroradiol 30 : 317-325, 2024
![]() ![]() ![]() 66. Mason PJ, Shah B, Tamis-Holland JE, Bittl JA, Cohen MG, Safirstein J, et al : An update on radial artery access and best practices for transradial coronary angiography and intervention in acute coronary syndrome: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 11 : e000035, 2018
![]() ![]() 67. Maud A, Khatri R, Chaudhry MRA, Vellipuram A, Cruz-Flores S, Rodriguez GJ : Transradial access results in faster skin puncture to reperfusion time than transfemoral access in posterior circulation mechanical thrombectomy. J Vasc Interv Neurol 10 : 53-57, 2019
![]() ![]() 68. Mendiz OA, Fava C, Lev G, Caponi G, Valdivieso L : Transradial versus transfemoral carotid artery stenting: a 16-year single-center experience. J Interv Cardiol 29 : 588-593, 2016
![]() ![]() ![]() 69. Mendiz OA, Sampaolesi AH, Londero HF, Fava CM, Lev GA, Valdivieso LR : Initial experience with transradial access for carotid artery stenting. Vasc Endovascular Surg 45 : 499-503, 2011
![]() ![]() ![]() 70. Mirbolouk MH, Ebrahimnia F, Gorji R, Sasannejad P, Zabihyan S, Hoveizavi MA, et al : Transradial access for neurointerventional procedures: a practical approach. Brain Circ 9 : 88-93, 2023
![]() ![]() ![]() 71. Mouchtouris N, Al Saiegh F, Sweid A, Amllay A, Tjoumakaris S, Gooch R, et al : Transradial access for newly Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms: a technical note. World Neurosurg 131 : 6-9, 2019
![]() ![]() 72. Pancholy SB : Comparison of the effect of intra-arterial versus intravenous heparin on radial artery occlusion after transradial catheterization. Am J Cardiol 104 : 1083-1085, 2009
![]() ![]() 73. Pancholy SB, Bernat I, Bertrand OF, Patel TM : Prevention of radial artery occlusion after transradial catheterization: the PROPHET-II randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9 : 1992-1999, 2016
![]() 74. Papadopoulos K, Kerner A, Yalonetsky S, Nikolsky E, Feld Y, Roguin A : Strategies to overcome challenges of transradial coronary angiography and intervention. Rev Cardiovasc Med 21 : 501-505, 2020
![]() ![]() 75. Phillips TJ, Crockett MT, Selkirk GD, Kabra R, Chiu AHY, Singh T, et al : Transradial versus transfemoral access for anterior circulation mechanical thrombectomy: analysis of 375 consecutive cases. Stroke Vasc Neurol 6 : 207-213, 2021
![]() ![]() 76. Polimeni A, Passafaro F, De Rosa S, Sorrentino S, Torella D, Spaccarotella C, et al : Clinical and procedural outcomes of 5-french versus 6-french sheaths in transradial coronary interventions. Medicine (Baltimore) 94 : e2170, 2015
![]() ![]() ![]() 77. Ruzsa Z, Nemes B, Pintér L, Berta B, Tóth K, Teleki B, et al : A randomised comparison of transradial and transfemoral approach for carotid artery stenting: RADCAR (RADial access for CARotid artery stenting) study. EuroIntervention 10 : 381-391, 2014
![]() ![]() 78. Saito S, Ikei H, Hosokawa G, Tanaka S : Influence of the ratio between radial artery inner diameter and sheath outer diameter on radial artery flow after transradial coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 46 : 173-178, 1999
![]() ![]() 79. Sandoval Y, Bell MR, Gulati R : Transradial artery access complications. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 12 : e007386, 2019
![]() ![]() 80. Seto AH, Roberts JS, Abu-Fadel MS, Czak SJ, Latif F, Jain SP, et al : Real-time ultrasound guidance facilitates transradial access: RAUST (radial artery access with ultrasound trial). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8 : 283-291, 2015
![]() 81. Shen S, Jiang X, Dong H, Peng M, Wang Z, Che W, et al : Effect of aortic arch type on technical indicators in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting. J Int Med Res 47 : 682-688, 2019
![]() ![]() ![]() 82. Siddiqui AH, Waqas M, Neumaier J, Zhang JF, Dossani RH, Cappuzzo JM, et al : Radial first or patient first: a case series and meta-analysis of transradial versus transfemoral access for acute ischemic stroke intervention. J Neurointerv Surg 13 : 687-692, 2021
![]() ![]() 83. Snelling BM, Sur S, Shah SS, Caplan J, Khandelwal P, Yavagal DR, et al : Transradial approach for complex anterior and posterior circulation interventions: technical nuances and feasibility of using current devices. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 17 : 293-302, 2019
![]() ![]() 84. Son C, Tavakoli-Sabour S : Transradial access for embolization of cerebral aneurysms with the woven EndoBridge device: case series and review of the literature. Interv Neuroradiol 27 : 207-211, 2021
![]() ![]() ![]() 85. Tan WN, Rajadurai A, Balakrishnan D : Endovascular treatment of cavernous sinus dural arteriovenous fistula via radial artery and median cubital vein. Neurointervention 16 : 194-198, 2021
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 86. Valgimigli M, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, Vranckx P, Rothenbühler M, Tebaldi M, et al : 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 392 : 835-848, 2018
![]() 87. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, Zaro T, et al : Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 385 : 2465-2476, 2015
![]() ![]() 88. Wang Z, Xia J, Wang W, Xu G, Gu J, Wang Y, et al : Transradial versus transfemoral approach for cerebral angiography: a prospective comparison. J Interv Med 2 : 31-34, 2019
![]() ![]() ![]() 89. Waqas M, Monteiro A, Cappuzzo JM, Kruk MD, Almayman F, Housley SB, et al : Mechanical thrombectomy with a balloon-guide catheter: sheathless transradial versus transfemoral approach. J Neurointerv Surg 16 : 187-191, 2024
![]() ![]() 90. Weinberg JH, Sweid A, Hammoud B, Asada A, Greco-Hiranaka C, Piper K, et al : A comparative study of transradial versus transfemoral approach for flow diversion. Neuroradiology 63 : 1335-1343, 2021
![]() ![]() ![]() 91. Wysiadecki G, Polguj M, Haładaj R, Topol M : Low origin of the radial artery: a case study including a review of literature and proposal of an embryological explanation. Anat Sci Int 92 : 293-298, 2017
![]() ![]() ![]() 92. Yan ZX, Zhou YJ, Zhao YX, Zhou ZM, Yang SW, Wang ZJ : Anatomical study of forearm arteries with ultrasound for percutaneous coronary procedures. Circ J 74 : 686-692, 2010
![]() ![]() |
|