Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep;12(9):886-892.
doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015764. Epub 2020 Mar 9.

Transradial approach for neurointerventions: a systematic review of the literature

Krishna C Joshi  1 , André Beer-Furlan  2 , R Webster Crowley  2 , Michael Chen  2 , Stephan A Munich  2
Affiliations

Transradial approach for neurointerventions: a systematic review of the literature

Krishna C Joshi et al. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Despite the recent increase in the number of publications on diagnostic cerebral angiograms using transradial access (TRA), there have been relatively few regarding TRA for neurointerventional cases. Questions of feasibility and safety may still exist among physicians considering TRA for neurointerventional procedures.

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Three online databases (MedLine via PubMed, Scopus and Embase) were searched for articles published between January 2000 and December 2019. Search terms included "Transradial access", "Radial Access", "Radial artery" AND "Neurointerventions". The reference lists of selected articles and pertinent available non-systematic analysis were reviewed for other potential citations. Primary outcomes measured were access site complications and crossover rates.

Results: Twenty-one studies (n=1342 patients) were included in this review. Two of the studies were prospective while the remaining 19 were retrospective. Six studies (n=616 patients) included TRA carotid stenting only. The rest of the studies included treatment for cerebral aneurysms (n=423), mechanical thrombectomy (n=127), tumor embolization (n=22), and other indications (n=154) such as angioplasty and stenting for vertebrobasilar stenosis, balloon test occlusion, embolization of dural arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous malformation, chemotherapeutic drug delivery, intra-arterial thrombolysis, and arterial access during a venous stenting procedure. Two (0.15%) major complications and 37 (2.75%) minor complications were reported. Sixty-four (4.77%) patients crossed over to transfemoral access for completion of the procedure. Seven (0.52%) patients crossed over due to access failure and 57 (4.24%) patients crossed over to TFA due to inability to cannulate the target vessel.

Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrates that TRA has a relatively low rate of access site complications and crossovers. With increasing familiarity, development of TRA-specific neuroendovascular devices, and the continued reports of its success in the literature, TRA is expected to become more widely used by neurointerventionalists.

Keywords: angiography; complication; device; intervention; technique.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA diagram summarizing the systematic process used to identify, screen, and include articles analyzed for this review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pie chart demonstrating the various indications for neurointervention using the transradial access.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jolly SS, Amlani S, Hamon M, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J 2009;157:132–40. 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.08.023 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ferrante G, Rao SV, Jüni P, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions across the entire spectrum of patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:1419–34. 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.04.014 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Feldman DN, Swaminathan RV, 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. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000536 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cooper CJ, El-Shiekh RA, Cohen DJ, et al. Effect of transradial access on quality of life and cost of cardiac catheterization: a randomized comparison. Am Heart J 1999;138:430–6. 10.1016/S0002-8703(99)70143-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. The Lancet 2011;377:1409–20. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60404-2 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types