Abstract
Introduction Continued advancements in the treatments for neurological disease have helped interventionalists to refine approaches that offer improved surgical efficacy and patient outcomes. Carotid‐artery stenting (CAS) is a safe and effective alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA), that allows for revascularization of the internal carotid artery (ICA) in a minimally‐invasive manner. Traditionally, the mainstay for CAS has been through the femoral artery; however, patients with carotid‐artery disease (CAD) often have concomitant peripheral artery disease which confer increased risk of significant life‐threatening access‐site complications, such as retroperitoneal hematoma and limb ischemia. Given this, CAS via the radial artery has become increasingly popular. This study seeks to investigate the safety and feasibility of the transradial approach (TRA), in comparison to the traditional transfemoral approach (TFA), for carotid‐artery stenting. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of all adult patients (age >18) who underwent carotid‐artery stenting via TRA or TFA over a 4‐year study period (2018‐2021) across 4 different international academic centers. Important variables, such as patient demographics, comorbidities, procedural details, results, and complications were collected. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the strength of association and correlation for these variables. Results A total of 313 patients were enrolled during the study period. CAS via TFA was attempted in 251 patients and via TRA in 62 patients, respectively. Overall, CAS via TRA was found to be successful in 48/62 (76%) patients, and via TFA in 246/251 (98%) patients. Baseline demographics were similar for the two groups, with a female gender predilection, median age of 69, and hypertension and hyperlipidemia serving as the most common medical comorbidities. 14/62 (22.6%) patients who underwent TRA were converted to TFA. Spasm of the radial artery, kinking of the catheter and severe tortuosity of the vessels were the primary reasons for access site conversion. A total of five major access site‐related complications, including two deaths, and seven minor complications were noted in the TFA cohort. No serious access related complications were noted in the TRA group. In the multivariate‐analysis, after adjusting for age, hyperlipidemia, chronic heart failure, combination of stent plus angioplasty and fluoroscopy times, there was no statistically significant difference observed among the 2 groups in terms of procedural (OR: 0.31; CI: 0.36‐2.69; P = 0.29) and overall access site complications (OR: 0.17, CI: 0.02‐1.98, P = 0.16). Conclusions TRA seems to be a safe alternative approach for carotid stenting. In our cohort, no serious access site‐related complications were noted with TRA in comparison to the TFA group. Continued improvements in terms of patient selection, sample size, as well as advances in technique and technology will help to further refine TRA for CAS. Further studies and analysis will need to be performed to delineate the crucial variables that contribute to improved functional outcomes for these patients.