We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of Transradial vs Transfemoral Access for Aortoiliac and Femoropopliteal Interventions: A Single-Center Experience.
Journal of Endovascular Therapy 2016 December
PURPOSE: To compare the procedure and safety outcomes of the transradial approach (TRA) with the femoral approach (FA) for treating aortoiliac and femoropopliteal stenoses and occlusions.
METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted involving 188 patients (mean age 66.4±10.8 years; 116 men) with lower limb claudication or critical limb ischemia who underwent aortoiliac (131, 62.4%) or femoropopliteal (79, 37.6%) interventions on 210 lesions over a 3-year period. Operator discretion determined TRA suitability; exclusions included Raynaud's disease, upper limb occlusive disease, previous TRA difficulties, or planned hemodialysis. Lesion characteristics, clinical endpoints, and access site complications were compared.
RESULTS: FA was used primarily in 123 patients and the TRA (12 left and 53 right radial arteries) in 65 procedures. Eleven (16.9%) TRAs failed vs 9 (7.3%) FAs (p=0.42). Crossover to FA was due to occlusive lesions requiring alternative equipment in 9 cases and to tortuosity of the aortic arch vessels in 2 patients. The 134 FA interventions (balloon angioplasty, stents) were retrograde (112, 83.6%) or antegrade (22, 16.4%). There were significantly more TASC C/D lesions in the FA group (p=0.02). Sheath sizes (5-F to 8-F) did not differ between groups, and no significant differences were found between FA vs TRA in terms of procedure time (50.0±28.9 vs 46.8±25.1 minutes, p=0.50) or length of stay (2.2±0.6 vs 2.1±0.3 days, p=0.24). While there were no strokes, access site complications occurred in 6.0% of the FA patients vs 3.7% of the TRA patients (p=0.12).
CONCLUSION: The transradial approach for aortoiliac and femoropopliteal interventions is safe and efficacious compared with the transfemoral approach for a range of lesion subtypes. Nevertheless, there remains a need for improvements in peripheral device and catheter technology to decrease transradial failure rates.
METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted involving 188 patients (mean age 66.4±10.8 years; 116 men) with lower limb claudication or critical limb ischemia who underwent aortoiliac (131, 62.4%) or femoropopliteal (79, 37.6%) interventions on 210 lesions over a 3-year period. Operator discretion determined TRA suitability; exclusions included Raynaud's disease, upper limb occlusive disease, previous TRA difficulties, or planned hemodialysis. Lesion characteristics, clinical endpoints, and access site complications were compared.
RESULTS: FA was used primarily in 123 patients and the TRA (12 left and 53 right radial arteries) in 65 procedures. Eleven (16.9%) TRAs failed vs 9 (7.3%) FAs (p=0.42). Crossover to FA was due to occlusive lesions requiring alternative equipment in 9 cases and to tortuosity of the aortic arch vessels in 2 patients. The 134 FA interventions (balloon angioplasty, stents) were retrograde (112, 83.6%) or antegrade (22, 16.4%). There were significantly more TASC C/D lesions in the FA group (p=0.02). Sheath sizes (5-F to 8-F) did not differ between groups, and no significant differences were found between FA vs TRA in terms of procedure time (50.0±28.9 vs 46.8±25.1 minutes, p=0.50) or length of stay (2.2±0.6 vs 2.1±0.3 days, p=0.24). While there were no strokes, access site complications occurred in 6.0% of the FA patients vs 3.7% of the TRA patients (p=0.12).
CONCLUSION: The transradial approach for aortoiliac and femoropopliteal interventions is safe and efficacious compared with the transfemoral approach for a range of lesion subtypes. Nevertheless, there remains a need for improvements in peripheral device and catheter technology to decrease transradial failure rates.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app