Transradial versus transfemoral access for mechanical thrombectomy: A single institution experience.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 Medicine Interventional Neuroradiology Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1177/15910199241298725
Richard Bram, James W Nie, Peter Theiss, Dario Marotta, Maureen Hillman, Ali Alaraj, Gursant S Atwal
{"title":"Transradial versus transfemoral access for mechanical thrombectomy: A single institution experience.","authors":"Richard Bram, James W Nie, Peter Theiss, Dario Marotta, Maureen Hillman, Ali Alaraj, Gursant S Atwal","doi":"10.1177/15910199241298725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been debate in the literature regarding the adoption of a \"radial-first\" approach for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Conflicting reports suggest that transradial access (TRA) may allow for shorter times to reperfusion while others conclude that long-term functional outcomes may favor transfemoral access (TFA). Here, we report a single-institution experience with the adoption of TRA as the primary route for acute stroke intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed a single-institution database of patients undergoing MT for AIS from March 2020 to April 2023. This time period was selected to capture the change in clinical practice at our institution from TFA to TRA. Primary and secondary outcomes included technical success, procedural complications, and long-term functional outcomes. Patients were stratified into two cohorts from initial access. Cohorts were compared utilizing inferential statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 192 consecutive cases were identified, with 80 in the TFA cohort and 112 in the TRA cohort. There was no difference in outcomes with respect to time from puncture to recanalization, rates of successful recanalization (TICI ≥ 2b), number of passes, rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), modified Rankin scale (mRS) at discharge and 90 days, and 90-day mortality (<i>p</i> ≥ 0.05, all). The TRA had a higher rate of access conversion (<i>p</i> < 0.001), while the TFA cohort had a higher rate of access site complications (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p>","PeriodicalId":14380,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neuroradiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11565504/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199241298725","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There has been debate in the literature regarding the adoption of a "radial-first" approach for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Conflicting reports suggest that transradial access (TRA) may allow for shorter times to reperfusion while others conclude that long-term functional outcomes may favor transfemoral access (TFA). Here, we report a single-institution experience with the adoption of TRA as the primary route for acute stroke intervention.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a single-institution database of patients undergoing MT for AIS from March 2020 to April 2023. This time period was selected to capture the change in clinical practice at our institution from TFA to TRA. Primary and secondary outcomes included technical success, procedural complications, and long-term functional outcomes. Patients were stratified into two cohorts from initial access. Cohorts were compared utilizing inferential statistics.

Results: A total of 192 consecutive cases were identified, with 80 in the TFA cohort and 112 in the TRA cohort. There was no difference in outcomes with respect to time from puncture to recanalization, rates of successful recanalization (TICI ≥ 2b), number of passes, rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), modified Rankin scale (mRS) at discharge and 90 days, and 90-day mortality (p ≥ 0.05, all). The TRA had a higher rate of access conversion (p < 0.001), while the TFA cohort had a higher rate of access site complications (p < 0.05).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经桡动脉与经股动脉入路进行机械血栓切除术:单个医疗机构的经验。
背景:关于在急性缺血性卒中(AIS)中采用 "桡动脉先行 "方法进行机械血栓切除术(MT),文献中一直存在争论。相互矛盾的报道表明,经桡动脉入路(TRA)可缩短再灌注时间,而其他报道则认为,长期功能结果可能更倾向于经股动脉入路(TFA)。在此,我们报告了单个机构采用 TRA 作为急性卒中干预主要途径的经验:我们对 2020 年 3 月至 2023 年 4 月期间接受 MT 治疗的 AIS 患者的单一机构数据库进行了回顾性研究。选择这一时期是为了捕捉本机构临床实践从 TFA 到 TRA 的变化。主要和次要结果包括技术成功率、手术并发症和长期功能预后。从初始入路开始,患者被分为两个队列。利用推理统计对两组患者进行比较:共确定了 192 例连续病例,其中 80 例属于 TFA 组群,112 例属于 TRA 组群。从穿刺到再通畅的时间、成功再通畅率(TICI ≥ 2b)、通畅次数、症状性颅内出血(sICH)率、出院时和 90 天后的改良 Rankin 评分(mRS)以及 90 天死亡率等方面的结果均无差异(均 p ≥ 0.05)。TRA 的入路转换率更高(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
11.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Interventional Neuroradiology (INR) is a peer-reviewed clinical practice journal documenting the current state of interventional neuroradiology worldwide. INR publishes original clinical observations, descriptions of new techniques or procedures, case reports, and articles on the ethical and social aspects of related health care. Original research published in INR is related to the practice of interventional neuroradiology...
期刊最新文献
Balloon angioplasty for cerebral vasospasm in preschool children. Transradial versus transfemoral access for mechanical thrombectomy: A single institution experience. Validity of Woven EndoBridge sizing based on the device-to-aneurysm volume ratio. Accelerated aspiration with Q™ catheter: An in vitro study. High mechanical thrombectomy procedural volume is not a reliable predictor of improved thrombectomy outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke in the United States.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1