CTA-Based Patient-Tailored Femoral or Radial Frontline Access Reduces the Rate of Catheterization Failure in Chronic Subdural Hematoma Embolization.
Journal
AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology
ISSN: 1936-959X
Titre abrégé: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
05
07
2020
accepted:
12
10
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2021
medline:
18
5
2021
entrez:
5
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Chronic subdural hematoma embolization, an apparently simple procedure, can prove to be challenging because of the advanced age of the target population. The aim of this study was to compare 2 arterial-access strategies, femoral versus patient-tailored CTA-based frontline access selection, in chronic subdural hematoma embolization procedures. This was a monocentric retrospective study. From the March 15, 2018, to the February 14, 2019 (period 1), frontline femoral access was used. Between February 15, 2019, and March 30, 2020 (period 2), the choice of the frontline access, femoral or radial, was based on the CTA recommended as part of the preoperative work-up during both above-mentioned periods. The primary end point was the rate of catheterization failure. The secondary end points were the rate of access site conversion and fluoroscopy duration. During the study period, 124 patients (with 143 chronic subdural hematomas) underwent an embolization procedure (mean age, 74 [SD, 13] years). Forty-eight chronic subdural hematomas (43 patients) were included during period 1 and were compared with 95 chronic subdural hematomas (81 patients) during period 2. During the first period, 5/48 (10%) chronic subdural hematoma embolizations were aborted due to failed catheterization, significantly more than during period 2 (1/95, 1%; A CTA-based patient-tailored choice of frontline arterial access reduces the rate of catheterization failure in chronic subdural hematoma embolization procedures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Chronic subdural hematoma embolization, an apparently simple procedure, can prove to be challenging because of the advanced age of the target population. The aim of this study was to compare 2 arterial-access strategies, femoral versus patient-tailored CTA-based frontline access selection, in chronic subdural hematoma embolization procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This was a monocentric retrospective study. From the March 15, 2018, to the February 14, 2019 (period 1), frontline femoral access was used. Between February 15, 2019, and March 30, 2020 (period 2), the choice of the frontline access, femoral or radial, was based on the CTA recommended as part of the preoperative work-up during both above-mentioned periods. The primary end point was the rate of catheterization failure. The secondary end points were the rate of access site conversion and fluoroscopy duration.
RESULTS
During the study period, 124 patients (with 143 chronic subdural hematomas) underwent an embolization procedure (mean age, 74 [SD, 13] years). Forty-eight chronic subdural hematomas (43 patients) were included during period 1 and were compared with 95 chronic subdural hematomas (81 patients) during period 2. During the first period, 5/48 (10%) chronic subdural hematoma embolizations were aborted due to failed catheterization, significantly more than during period 2 (1/95, 1%;
CONCLUSIONS
A CTA-based patient-tailored choice of frontline arterial access reduces the rate of catheterization failure in chronic subdural hematoma embolization procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33541902
pii: ajnr.A6951
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6951
pmc: PMC7959413
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
495-500Informations de copyright
© 2021 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.
Références
Lancet. 2018 Sep 8;392(10150):835-848
pubmed: 30153988
J Neurotrauma. 2018 Aug 15;35(16):1882-1885
pubmed: 30074869
Stroke. 2019 Sep;50(9):2587-2590
pubmed: 31311466
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Sep;10(9):874-881
pubmed: 29311120
Am J Pathol. 1978 Jul;92(1):69-84
pubmed: 686149
Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1989 Jan;16(1):3-7
pubmed: 2912567
World Neurosurg. 2019 Jun;126:e473-e479
pubmed: 30825631
Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2011 Aug;45(6):499-503
pubmed: 21844492
J Neurosurg. 2000 Oct;93(4):686-8
pubmed: 11014549
J Neurotrauma. 2020 Dec 15;37(24):2703-2708
pubmed: 32546051
J Neurosurg. 2014 Sep;121(3):665-73
pubmed: 24995782
J Vasc Surg. 2007 May;45(5):875-80
pubmed: 17466784
J Neurosurg. 1983 Aug;59(2):298-303
pubmed: 6864298
Interv Neuroradiol. 2007 Mar 15;13 Suppl 1:141-4
pubmed: 20566092
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Sep;11(9):912-915
pubmed: 30798265
Korean J Neurotrauma. 2015 Oct;11(2):187-90
pubmed: 27169092
World Neurosurg. 2013 Dec;80(6):889-92
pubmed: 22722034
Interv Neuroradiol. 2015 Jun;21(3):366-71
pubmed: 26015518
J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Jun;12(6):611-615
pubmed: 31843764
Stroke. 2019 Sep;50(9):2364-2370
pubmed: 31670928
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 1992 Apr;32(4):207-9
pubmed: 1378564
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Dec;46(6):1119-24
pubmed: 18154988
Radiology. 2018 Mar;286(3):992-999
pubmed: 29019449
Lancet. 2011 Apr 23;377(9775):1409-20
pubmed: 21470671
J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Dec;12(12):1209-1213
pubmed: 32439812
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Apr;42(4):E13
pubmed: 28366055
J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Oct;12(10):993-998
pubmed: 31974282
Lancet. 2009 Sep 26;374(9695):1067-73
pubmed: 19782872
Interv Neuroradiol. 2021 Feb;27(1):68-74
pubmed: 32623930
J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Aug;12(8):733-741
pubmed: 31818970
J Clin Neurosci. 2018 Mar;49:40-47
pubmed: 29274740
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Jun;10(6):516-524
pubmed: 28963367
Neurosurgery. 2019 Dec 1;85(6):801-807
pubmed: 30418606
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 18;60(24):2481-9
pubmed: 22858390
Surg Neurol Int. 2013 Aug 19;4:104
pubmed: 24032079
Ann Surg. 2014 Mar;259(3):449-57
pubmed: 24096761