E-ISSN: 1305-3612
Most common misconceptions about transradial approach in interventional radiology: results from an international survey
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Interventional Radiology - Original Article
VOLUME: 27 ISSUE: 5
P: 649-653
September 2021

Most common misconceptions about transradial approach in interventional radiology: results from an international survey

Diagn Interv Radiol 2021;27(5):649-653
DOI: 10.5152/dir.2021.20256
Roberto Iezzi 1,2
Alessandro Posa 1
Thiago Bilhim 3
Marcelo Guimaraes 4
1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological and Hematological Radiotherapy, Institute of Radiology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italia
2. Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Roma, Italia
3. Interventional Radiology Unit, Curry Cabral Hospital, Central Lisbon University Hospital, Saint Louis Hospital, NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal
4. Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
No information available.
No information available
Received Date: 23.04.2020
Accepted Date: 11.09.2020
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess the use of transradial approach (TRA) among interventional radiologists (IRs) and its perceived advantages and disadvantages that have driven the decision to select or refuse this endovascular approach.

METHODS

A multicountry survey of 20 multiple-choice questions was conducted among interventional radiologists in Europe and the United States. Questions assessed demographic information of the participants and whether they performed TRA routinely, pre-procedural screening modalities for TRA, TRA technique, complications, reasons for adopting TRA and reasons for not adopting TRA. A total of 187 IRs completed the survey.

RESULTS

One hundred respondents (53.5%) performed TRA routinely. TRA was chosen based on the procedure (90%, mostly embolization) and physical examination (75%). Patient preference (79%) and faster patient ambulation/discharge (73%) were the main drivers for TRA. Long learning curve (45%), lack of training (32%), prolonged procedural time (31%), potential risk for neurological complications (31%), and increase in radiation exposure (28%) were the most frequent detractors. TRA use was significantly higher in the US than in Europe (p < 0.001) and among male IRs than female IRs (p < 0.01). There was a declining trend in use of TRA with advanced age and more years of experience of IRs.

CONCLUSION

TRA usage among IRs is limited by issues that can easily be addressed. This survey could help IRs to better understand the real advantages of TRA and how it can offer higher value in patient care.