Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A reality check in transradial access: a single-centre comparison of transradial and transfemoral access for abdominal and peripheral intervention
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A reality check in transradial access: a single-centre comparison of transradial and transfemoral access for abdominal and peripheral intervention
Do you wish to request the book?
A reality check in transradial access: a single-centre comparison of transradial and transfemoral access for abdominal and peripheral intervention
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A reality check in transradial access: a single-centre comparison of transradial and transfemoral access for abdominal and peripheral intervention
2019
Overview
ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to describe a single institution’s experience with transradial access (TRA) for angiographic interventions, and to compare technical success, complication rate and radiation dose of procedures performed with TRA to those performed with transfemoral access (TFA).MethodsA retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing peripheral interventions via TRA or TFA from 2015 to 2017 was performed. The cohort comprised 33 patients undergoing 44 procedures via TRA and 37 patients undergoing 44 procedures via TFA. Outcome measures were technical success, access-related complications, fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure. Differences at p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar between patients who had procedures via TRA versus those who had procedures via TFA, including age, sex and body mass index. Technical success was achieved in 41/44 (93.2%) of procedures performed via TRA, compared to 44/44 (100%) of procedures performed via TFA (p = 0.241). There were three access-related complications (6.8%) when TRA was performed, compared to none when TFA was performed (p = 0.241). Fluoroscopy time was longer in procedures performed with TRA compared to those performed with TFA (27.3 vs 20.4, p = 0.033). Dose area product (DAP) did not differ with access site choice (p = 0.186).ConclusionsTRA is a safe and feasible alternative to TFA for a range of peripheral interventions. However, TRA must be performed with prudence as it is not without complications and is technically challenging, leading to longer fluoroscopy time.Key Points• Transradial access (TRA) is feasible in a variety of peripheral interventions, achieving success in 93.2% of cases.• Access-related complications are comparable between transfemoral access (TFA) and TRA (p = 0.241), but prudence must be taken during TRA as it could be technically challenging.• Procedures performed with TRA tend to have longer fluoroscopy time compared to those performed with TFA (p = 0.033), but the DAPs are comparable (p = 0.186).
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
