Therapeutic efficacy and complications of radial versus femoral access in endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms

Abstract

Purpose The transradial approach (TRA) in neuroendovascular treatment is known to have a lower risk of complications than the transfemoral approach (TFA). However, little research has focused on assessments of efficacy and risk of complications in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and complications of TRA and TFA in coil embolization of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) at our institution. Methods Consecutive patients who underwent endovascular surgery via TRA or TFA at a single institution from 1 April 2019, to 28 February 2022, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified into TRA and TFA groups and assessed using propensity-adjusted analysis for outcomes including fluoroscopy time, volume embolization ratio (VER), and complications. Results A total of 163 consecutive UIAs were treated with coil embolization during the 35-months study period. The incidence of minor access site complications (ASCs) was significantly higher with TFA (20%, 25/126) than with TRA (2.7%, 1/37; p = 0.01). Propensity-adjusted analysis (matched for age, sex, aneurysm volume, embolization technique, and sheath size) revealed that TRA was associated with a lower risk of minor ASCs (odds ratio, 0.085; 95% confidence interval 0.0094–0.78; p = 0.029). However, TRA did not differ significantly from TFA with respect to fluoroscopy time, VER, major ASCs, and non-ASCs. Conclusions Coil embolization for UIAs via TRA can reduce risk of minor ASCs without increasing the risk of non-ASCs compared with conventional TFA, and can achieve comparable results in term of efficacy and fluoroscopy time.

A new imaging classification for safer radial access visceral intervention of the liver and optimal case selection: A preliminary report

“…Although some reports have examined the difficulty of the TRA procedure in the cerebrovascular and cardiovascular field, 12–14 it is assumed that simple appropriation of these reports would be difficult due to anatomical differences in the technique for inserting a catheter into the descending aorta.…”