Are you considering a radial approach?
Find below a series of comprehensive resources developed for neurologists like you, who want to learn or improve their skills in radial techniques and treatments.
The benefits of radial
Whether you’re new to the field or looking to enhance your skill, we’ve got you covered. Explore the benefits of radial access and master techniques.
- Download infographic.
- Access our expert tutorial video.
- Learn more about the Rist™ catheter.
The benefits of the transradial access site for neurointervention.
TRA is associated with a lower incidence rate of access site complications versus TFA1
TRA is associated with increased patient satisfaction and preference versus TFA2†,3‡
TRA is associated with hospital cost savings among diagnostic and interventional procedures versus TFA4,§
See the device manual for detailed information regarding the instructions for use, indications, contraindications, warnings, precautions, and potential adverse events. For further information, contact your local Medtronic representative and/or consult the Medtronic website at medtronic.eu.
References
TRA: Transradial Access
TFA: Transfemoral Access
* Comprehensive report based on 32 studies. TRA 95% CI: 0.31% to 1.47%. TFA 95% CI: 1.88% to 4.55%.
† Patients who underwent both TRA and TFA procedures (N=66)
‡ Patients surveyed on discomfort and pain (N=80). Patients preference for TRA vs TFA (N=58).
§ 95% CI: -$4931 to $97; p=0.04. Single study center. After propensity adjustment for age, sex, symptoms, angiographic findings, procedure type, sheath size, and catheter size, TRA access site associated cost difference.
** TRA:18.8±15.8 minutes, TFA:39.5±31.1 minutes; p=0.025; N=98. Patients underwent cerebral angiograms via radial and femoral artery access.
†† The safety and effectiveness of this device for radial neurovasculature access in direct comparison to a transfemoral approach has not been demonstrated. The risks and benefits for radial access against a transfemoral approach should be carefully weighed and considered for each patient.
‡‡ 312 patients were enrolled, 158 and 154 for right radial and femoral access, respectively. The diagnostic goal of the angiogram was achieved in 152 of 154 (99%) patients who underwent attempted femoral access compared with 153 of 158 (97%) patients who underwent radial access
§§ Single study center; After propensity adjustment for age, sex, symptoms, angiographic findings, procedure type, sheath size, and catheter size, TRA access site associated cost difference
1
Internal Medtronic Clinical Study Report D00358316: Safety and Performance of Radial Versus Femoral Access in Neurointervention.
2
Khanna, O., et al. Radial Artery Catheterization for Neuroendovascular Procedures. Stroke, 2019. 50(9): 2587-2590.
3
Snelling, BM., et al. Transradial cerebral angiography: techniques and outcomes. J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Sep;10(9): 874-881.
4
Catapano, J.S., et al. Propensity-adjusted cost analysis of radial versus femoral access for neuroendovascular procedures. J. Neurointerv Surg. 2021;13:752-754.
5
Bernat I., et al. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by radial or femoral approach in a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the STEMI-RADIAL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 18;63(10):964-72
6
Stone JG., et al. Transradial versus transfemoral approaches for diagnostic cerebral angiography: a prospective, single-center, non-inferiority comparative effectiveness study. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Oct;12(10):993-998.
7
Cooper CJ., et al. Effect of transradial access on quality of life and cost of cardiac catheterization: A randomized comparison. Am Heart J. 1999 Sep;138(3 Pt 1):430-6.
8
Amin AP, et al. Costs Associated With Access Site and Same-Day Discharge Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Evaluation of the Current Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Care Pathways in the United States. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Feb 27;10(4):342-351.