Purpose: To compare the characteristics and learning curve of the transfemoral approach (TFA) vs the transradial approach (TRA) for cerebral angiography. Materials and Methods: Between February 2016 and April 2017, 101 patients undergoing cerebral angiography were enrolled. Fifty-one patients (mean age 67 years; 40 men) were randomized to TFA and 50 (mean age 68 years; 41 men) to TRA using a computer-generated random table. The patients’ demographic and angiographic data were recorded and analyzed. The learning curve of a novice interventionist was analyzed for procedure time, puncture time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume as markers of technical proficiency with TFA compared with TRA. Median values are given with the interquartile range (IQR). Results: Procedure time [35 (IQR 30, 47.5) vs 31.0 (IQR 25.0, 48.9) minutes, p=0.16), fluoroscopy time [10.3 (IQR 7.6, 13.9) vs 9.4 (IQR 6.1, 17.6) minutes, p=0.70], contrast volume [105 (IQR 92, 120) vs 95.5 (IQR 90, 111.3) mL, p=0.13), radiation exposure [390.2 (IQR 268.2, 617.9) vs 455.8 (IQR 286.8, 602.3) mGy, p=0.74], and the number of catheter exchanges [1 (IQR 1, 3) vs 1 (IQR 1, 1), p=0.06] were not significantly different between the TFA and TRA groups, respectively, but puncture time was shorter with TFA than with TRA [0.6 (IQR 0.5, 1.1) vs 1 (IQR 0.6, 1.9) minutes, p=0.01]. The learning curve was steeper with TRA than with TFA in the beginning stages of training, but with increasing experience, the procedure and fluoroscopy times were better for TRA than for TFA. Training progress was made earlier in TRA. Conclusion: TRA is a reasonable alternative to TFA for cerebral angiography. TRA has a shorter learning curve for novice interventionists.
SnellingBMSurSShahSS, et al. Transradial cerebral angiography: techniques and outcomes. J Neurointerv Surg. 2018;10:874–881.
2.
AmorosoGKiemeneijF.Transradial access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the next standard of care?Heart. 2010;96:1341–1344.
3.
KumarAJJonesLEKollmeyerKR, et al. Radial artery access for peripheral endovascular procedures. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:820–825.
4.
JoKWParkSMKimSD, et al. Is transradial cerebral angiography feasible and safe? A single center’s experience. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2010;47:332–337.
5.
PinterLCagiannosCRuzsaZ, et al. Report on initial experience with transradial access for carotid artery stenting. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:1136–1141.
6.
MendizOASampaolesiAHLonderoHF, et al. Initial experience with transradial access for carotid artery stenting. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2011;45:499–503.
7.
MontorsiPGalliSRavagnaniPM, et al. Carotid artery stenting in patients with left ICA stenosis and bovine aortic arch: a single-center experience in 60 consecutive patients treated via the right radial or brachial approach. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21:127–136.
8.
RuzsaZNemesBPinterL, et al. A randomised comparison of transradial and transfemoral approach for carotid artery stenting: RADCAR (radial access for carotid artery stenting) study. EuroIntervention. 2014;10:381–391.
9.
MendizOAFavaCLevG, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral carotid artery stenting: a 16-year single-center experience. J Interv Cardiol. 2016;29:588–593.
10.
BarbashIMMinhaSGallinoR, et al. Operator learning curve for transradial percutaneous coronary interventions: implications for the initiation of a transradial access program in contemporary US practice. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2014;15:195–199.
11.
DariushniaSRGillAEMartinLG, et al; Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice C. Quality improvement guidelines for diagnostic arteriography. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25:1873–1881.
PoshamRBiedermanDMPatelRS, et al. Transradial approach for noncoronary interventions: a single-center review of safety and feasibility in the first 1,500 cases. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27:159–166.
14.
Hildick-SmithDJWalshJTLoweMD, et al. Transradial coronary angiography in patients with contraindications to the femoral approach: an analysis of 500 cases. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;61:60–66.
15.
HessCNPetersonEDNeelyML, 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. 2014;129:2277–2286.
16.
WernerMBausbackYBraunlichS, et al. Anatomic variables contributing to a higher periprocedural incidence of stroke and TIA in carotid artery stenting: single center experience of 833 consecutive cases. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80:321–328.
17.
DahmJBvan BurenFHansenC, et al. The concept of an anatomy related individual arterial access: lowering technical and clinical complications with transradial access in bovine- and type-III aortic arch carotid artery stenting. Vasa. 2011;40:468–473.
18.
AgostoniPBiondi-ZoccaiGGde BenedictisML, et al. Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures: systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:349–356.
19.
ParkJHKimDYKimJW, et al. Efficacy of transradial cerebral angiography in the elderly. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2013;53:213–217.
20.
ChughSKChughSChughY, et al. Feasibility and utility of pre-procedure ultrasound imaging of the arm to facilitate transradial coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures (PRIMAFACIE-TRI). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:64–73.
21.
RashidMKwokCSPancholyS, et al. Radial artery occlusion after transradial interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(1):e002686. doi:10.1161/JAHA.115.002686.
22.
WilsonSJMitchellAGrayTJM, et al. Patent haemostasis prevents radial artery occlusion in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. Int J Cardiol. 2017;240:78–81.
23.
van LeeuwenMAHHollanderMRvan der HeijdenDJ, et al. The ACRA Anatomy Study (Assessment of Disability After Coronary Procedures Using Radial Access): a comprehensive anatomic and functional assessment of the vasculature of the hand and relation to outcome after transradial catheterization. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(11):e005753. doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005753.
