Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2018 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 5

Prone transradial catheterization for combined single-session endovascular and percutaneous interventions: approach, technical success, safety, and outcomes in 15 patients

Pages
276–282
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

There were no minor or major access-site complications.CONCLUSIONPTRA is a safe and feasible method for performing combined arterial and posterior approachpercutaneous interventions without the need for repositioning.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSEWe aimed to report approach, safety, technical success, and clinical outcomes of prone transradialaccess (PTRA) and demonstrate feasibility for procedures requiring simultaneous arterialintervention and prone percutaneous access.METHODSFifteen patients underwent PTRA, seven females (47%) and eight males (53%), mean age of 55years (range, 19–78 years).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Variables included sheath size (French, F), type of anesthesia,arterial intervention technical success, posterior-approach percutaneous interventiontechnical success, estimated blood loss (mL), fluoroscopy and procedure time, complications,and follow-up.RESULTSMean sheath size was 4 F (range, 4–6 F; SD = 0.5).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There were no minor or major access-site complications.CONCLUSIONPTRA is a safe and feasible method for performing combined arterial and posterior approachpercutaneous interventions without the need for repositioning.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

PURPOSEWe aimed to report approach, safety, technical success, and clinical outcomes of prone transradialaccess (PTRA) and demonstrate feasibility for procedures requiring simultaneous arterialintervention and prone percutaneous access.METHODSFifteen patients underwent PTRA, seven females (47%) and eight males (53%), mean age of 55years (range, 19–78 years). All patients underwent PTRA for combined transarterial and posterior-approach percutaneous interventions. Variables included sheath size (French, F), type of anesthesia,arterial intervention technical success, posterior-approach percutaneous interventiontechnical success, estimated blood loss (mL), fluoroscopy and procedure time, complications,and follow-up.RESULTSMean sheath size was 4 F (range, 4–6 F; SD = 0.5). Arterial interventions included transarterialembolization of renal (n=6), hepatic (n=2), and pelvic vessels (n=2), diagnostic arteriography(n=4), and embolization of an arteriovenous malformation (n=1). Posterior-approach interventiontechnical success was 100% (15/15). PTRA technical success was 100% (15/15). Posterior-approachpercutaneous interventions included retroperitoneal (n=5) and pelvic (n=1) mass biopsies,nephrostomy tube placement (n=2), cryoablation of pelvic (n=2) and renal (n=1) masses,sclerotherapy of arteriovenous malformations (n=2), foreign body removal from the renal collectingsystem (n=2), ablation of a renal tumor (n=1), intracavitary injection of pulmonary mycetoma(n=1), and ablation and cementoplasty of a vertebral body tumor (n=1). The biopsies werediagnostic (6/6). There were no minor or major access-site complications.CONCLUSIONPTRA is a safe and feasible method for performing combined arterial and posterior approachpercutaneous interventions without the need for repositioning.

🔖

Cite This Article

SRİNİVASA, R. N., CHİCK, J. F. B., GEMMETE, J. J., MAJDALANY, B. S., HAGE, A., JO, A., SRİNİVASA, R. N. (2018). Prone transradial catheterization for combined single-session endovascular and percutaneous interventions: approach, technical success, safety, and outcomes in 15 patients. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 5, 276–282. https://ajindex.com/articles/350019

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Campeau L. Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1989
  2. 3–7. [CrossRef ] 2. 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
  3. 430–436. [CrossRef] 3. Amin AP, House JA, Safley DM, et al. Costs of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013
  4. 827–834. [CrossRef ] 4. Romagnoli E, Biondi-Zoccai G, Sciahbasi A, et al. Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE-STEACS (radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012
  5. 2481–2489. [CrossRef ] 5. Mehta S, Jolly SS, Cairns J, et al. Effects of radial versus femoral artery access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012
  6. 2490–2499. [CrossRef ] 6. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, et al. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2015
  7. 2465–2476. [CrossRef ] 7. Roy AK, Garot P, Louvard Y, et al. Comparison of transradial vs transfemoral access for aortoiliac and femoropopliteal interventions: a single- center experience. J Endovasc Ther 2016
  8. 880–888. [CrossRef ] 8. Biederman DM, Marinelli B, O’Connor PJ, et al. Transradial access for visceral endovascular interventions in morbidly obese patients: safety and feasibility. J Vasc Access 2016
  9. 256–260. [CrossRef ] 9. Resnick NJ, Kim E, Patel RS, Lookstein RA, Nowakowski FS, Fischman AM. Uterine artery embolization using a transradial approach: initial experience and technique. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014
  10. 443–447. [CrossRef ] 10. Bishay VL, Biederman DM, Ward TJ, et al. Transradial approach for hepatic radioembolization: initial results and technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016
  11. 1112–1121. [CrossRef ] 11. Raghuram P, Biederman DM, Patel RS, et al. Transradial approach to noncoronary interventions: a single-center review of safety and feasibility in the first 1500 cases. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2016
  12. 159–166. [CrossRef ] 12. Staniloae CS, Korabathina R, Yu J, Kurian D, Coppola J. Safety and efficacy of transradial aortoiliac interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2010
  13. 659–662. [CrossRef ] 13. Chick JFB, Branach C, Majdalany BS, et al. Prone transradial