Anatomic Snuffbox (Distal Radial Artery) and Radial Artery Access for Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms with FDA-Approved Flow Diverters

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Transradial access for neurointerventional procedures has been proved a safer and more comfortable alternative to femoral artery access. We present our experience with transradial (distal radial/anatomic snuffbox and radial artery) access for treatment of intracranial aneurysms using all 3 FDA-approved flow diverters.MATERIALS AND METHODS:This was a high-volume, dual-center, retrospective analysis of each institution’s data base between June 2018 and June 2020 and a collection of all patients treated with flow diversion via transradial access. Patient demographic information and procedural and radiographic data were obtained.RESULTS:Seventy-four patients were identified (64 female patients) with a mean age of 57.5 years with a total of 86 aneurysms. Most aneurysms were located in the anterior circulation (93%) and within the intracranial ICA (67.4%). The mean aneurysm size was 5.5 mm. Flow diverters placed included the Pipeline Embolization Device (Flex) (PED, n = 65), the Surpass Streamline Flow Diverter (n = 8), and the Flow-Redirection Endoluminal Device (FRED, n = 1). Transradial access was successful in all cases, but femoral crossover was required in 3 cases (4.1%) due to tortuous anatomy and inadequate support of the catheters in 2 cases and an inability to navigate to the target vessel in a patient with an aberrant right subclavian artery. All 71 other interventions were successfully performed via the transradial approach (95.9%). No access site complications were encountered. Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion was encountered in 1 case (3.7%).CONCLUSIONS:Flow diverters can be successfully placed via the transradial approach with high technical success, low access site complications, and a low femoral crossover rate.

The transradial access (TRA), including distal radial artery (dRA) access in the anatomic snuffbox and radial artery (RA) access at the palmar surface of the wrist, is being increasingly used as primary vascular access for neurointerventional procedures. In prior years, large randomized trials in the field of interventional cardiology and more recent articles in neurointerventional surgery have shown higher patient preference for the TRA, cost reduction, as well as lower morbidity and mortality compared with the traditional transfemoral access (TFA).^1-11 Reduction in access site complications has been a particular advantage of wrist over femoral access and is an important consideration for vascular access choice in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms using flow diversion. Patients undergoing flow diversion are required to take dual-antiplatelet agents and receive heparin during the procedure, all of which increase the risk of bleeding from the access site.¹² Also, flow diverters (FDs) may require large-bore catheter assemblies for delivery and deployment, which may increase the risk of radial artery occlusion, access site bleeding, or vascular injury.^13,14To date, only a limited number of case reports and case series have described the safety and feasibility of TRA for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms using flow diverters.^15-22Recently, a large, retrospective multicenter study reported the safety of TRA for flow diversion, showing a lower access site (P = .039) and overall complication rate (P = .035).¹² This study, however, did not cover catheter systems, patient functional outcome, and aneurysm occlusion. Here, we report our experience with TRA (dRA [anatomic snuffbox] and RA) for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms using all 3 FDA-approved flow diverters, including technical feasibility, procedural safety, patient outcome, and aneurysm occlusion on follow-up. Additionally, we reviewed the current literature on use of flow diverters via TRA.