Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2021 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 5

Evaluation of repeat distal transradial access in the anatomic snuffbox

Pages
639–643
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)

CONCLUSION Success rates are indistinguishable among first, second, and third time ldTRA suggesting that this is a durable access point.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE There is increasing interest in the distal radial artery in the anatomic snuffbox as an alternative arterial access point, but the durability of the distal radial artery to support repetitive accesses over multiple procedures is not well established.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this study was therefore to evaluate success rates for repeated left-sided distal transradial access (ldTRA) in the anatomic snuffbox.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSION Success rates are indistinguishable among first, second, and third time ldTRA suggesting that this is a durable access point.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

PURPOSE There is increasing interest in the distal radial artery in the anatomic snuffbox as an alternative arterial access point, but the durability of the distal radial artery to support repetitive accesses over multiple procedures is not well established. The purpose of this study was therefore to evaluate success rates for repeated left-sided distal transradial access (ldTRA) in the anatomic snuffbox. METHODS In this single institution retrospective study, all patients undergoing radioembolization treatments from January 1st, 2019 to May 1st, 2020 were prospectively evaluated for ldTRA. ldTRA was performed by 15 different operators. Exclusion criteria were a left radiocephalic hemodialysis fistula, inability to properly position the arm, Barbeau D waveform, or failed prior ldTRA due to tortuosity. Barbeau patterns, arterial sizes, and success rates at the first, second, and third ldTRA were compared. RESULTS Fifty patients were evaluated for ldTRA and 44, 39, and 10 underwent one, two, and three ldTRA attempts for a total of 93 procedures. There was no significant change in Barbeau patterns between the first and second (p = 0.13) or first and third (p = 1.0) ldTRA. There was no significant change in artery size between the first (mean, 2.3 mm; range, 1.5–3.4 mm) and second (mean, 2.3 mm; range, 1.6–3.3 mm) (p = 0.59) and first and third (mean, 2.4 mm; range, 1.9–3.3) (p = 0.45) ldTRA. The success rate was not significantly different between the first (93%, 41/44, 95% CI 81%–99%), second (95%, 37/39, 95% CI 83%–99%), and third (100%, 10/10, 95% CI 69%–100%) procedure (p = 1.0). The asymptomatic occlusion rate was 4.1% (2/49, 95% CI 0%–14%), and subsequent ldTRA was successfully completed in both patients with occlusions. There were no hemorrhagic or ischemic complications. CONCLUSION Success rates are indistinguishable among first, second, and third time ldTRA suggesting that this is a durable access point.

🔖

Cite This Article

RONALD, J., DUROCHER, N., MARTİN, J. G., SMİTH, T. P., KİM, C. Y., SAG, A. A. (2021). Evaluation of repeat distal transradial access in the anatomic snuffbox. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 5, 639–643. https://ajindex.com/articles/413753

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Ferrante G, Rao SV, Juni 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
  2. 1419–1434. [Crossref] 2. Liu LB, Cedillo MA, Bishay V, et al. Patient experience and preference in transradial versus transfemoral access during transarterial radioembolization: a randomized single-center trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2019
  3. 414–420. [Crossref] 3. Yamada R, Bracewell S, Bassaco B, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral arterial access in liver cancer embolization: randomized trial to assess patient satisfaction. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018
  4. 38–43. [Crossref] 4. Hadjivassiliou A, Cardarelli-Leite L, Jalal S, et al. Left distal transradial access (ldTRA): A comparative assessment of conventional and distal radial artery size. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2020
  5. 850–857. [Crossref] 5. Hamandi M, Saad M, Hasan R, et al. Distal versus conventional transradial artery access for coronary angiography and intervention: A meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2020
  6. 1209–1213. [Crossref] 6. Pua U, Sim JZT, Quek LHH, Kwan J, Lim GHT, Huang IKH. Feasibility study of "snuffbox" radial access for visceral interventions. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018
  7. 1276–1280. [Crossref] 7. Koutouzis M, Kontopodis E, Tassopoulos A, et al. Distal versus traditional radial approach for coronary angiography. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2019
  8. 678–680. [Crossref] 8. Chen SH, Brunet MC, Sur S, Yavagal DR, Starke RM, Peterson EC. Feasibility of repeat transradial access for neuroendovascular procedures. J Neurointerv Surg 2020
  9. 431–434. [Crossref] 9. Kis B, Mills M, Hoffe SE. Hepatic radioembolization from transradial access: initial experience and comparison to transfemoral access. Diagn Interv Radiol 2016
  10. 444–449. [Crossref] 10. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing
  11. van Dam L, Geeraedts T, Bijdevaate D, van Doormaal PJ, The A, Moelker A. Distal radial artery access for noncoronary endovascular treatment is a safe and feasible technique. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2019
  12. 1281–1285. [Crossref] 12. Posham R, Biederman DM, Patel RS, 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
  13. 159–166. [Crossref] 13. Fischman AM, Biederman