Femoral versus radial access for middle meningeal artery embolization for chronic subdural hematomas: multicenter propensity score matched study.

IF 4.5 1区 医学 Q1 NEUROIMAGING
Mohamed M Salem, Georgios S Sioutas, Avi Gajjar, Jane Khalife, Okkes Kuybu, Kate T Carroll, Alex Nguyen Hoang, Ammad A Baig, Mira Salih, Cordell Baker, Gustavo M Cortez, Zack Abecassis, Juan Francisco Ruiz Rodriguez, Jason M Davies, C Michael Cawley, Howard Riina, Alejandro M Spiotta, Alexander Khalessi, Brian M Howard, Ricardo A Hanel, Omar Tanweer, Daniel Tonetti, Adnan H Siddiqui, Michael Lang, Elad I Levy, Christopher S Ogilvy, Visish M Srinivasan, Peter Kan, Bradley A Gross, Brian Jankowitz, Michael R Levitt, Ajith J Thomas, Ramesh Grandhi, Jan Karl Burkhardt
{"title":"Femoral versus radial access for middle meningeal artery embolization for chronic subdural hematomas: multicenter propensity score matched study.","authors":"Mohamed M Salem, Georgios S Sioutas, Avi Gajjar, Jane Khalife, Okkes Kuybu, Kate T Carroll, Alex Nguyen Hoang, Ammad A Baig, Mira Salih, Cordell Baker, Gustavo M Cortez, Zack Abecassis, Juan Francisco Ruiz Rodriguez, Jason M Davies, C Michael Cawley, Howard Riina, Alejandro M Spiotta, Alexander Khalessi, Brian M Howard, Ricardo A Hanel, Omar Tanweer, Daniel Tonetti, Adnan H Siddiqui, Michael Lang, Elad I Levy, Christopher S Ogilvy, Visish M Srinivasan, Peter Kan, Bradley A Gross, Brian Jankowitz, Michael R Levitt, Ajith J Thomas, Ramesh Grandhi, Jan Karl Burkhardt","doi":"10.1136/jnis-2024-021880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With transradial access (TRA) being more progressively used in neuroendovascular procedures, we compared TRA with transfemoral access (TFA) in middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) for chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive patients undergoing MMAE for cSDH at 14 North American centers (2018-23) were included. TRA and TFA groups were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) controlling for: age, sex, concurrent surgery, previous surgery, hematoma thickness and side, midline shift, and pretreatment antithrombotics. The primary outcome was access site and overall complications, and procedure duration; secondary endpoints were surgical rescue, radiographic improvement, and technical success and length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>872 patients (median age 73 years, 72.9% men) underwent 1070 MMAE procedures (54% TFA vs 46% TRA). Access site hematoma occurred in three TFA cases (0.5%; none required operative intervention) versus 0% in TRA (P=0.23), and radial-to-femoral conversion occurred in 1% of TRA cases. TRA was more used in right sided cSDH (58.4% vs 44.8%; P<0.001). Particle embolics were significantly higher in TFA while Onyx was higher in TRA (P<0.001). Following PSM, 150 matched pairs were generated. Particles were more utilized in the TFA group (53% vs 29.7%) and Onyx was more utilized in the TRA group (56.1% vs 31.5%) (P=0.001). Procedural duration was longer in the TRA group (median 68.5 min (IQR 43.1-95) vs 59 (42-84); P=0.038), and radiographic success was higher in the TFA group (87.3% vs 77.4%; P=0.036). No differences were noted in surgical rescue (8.4% vs 10.1%, P=0.35) or technical failures (2.4% vs 2%; P=0.67) between TFA and TRA. Sensitivity analysis in the standalone MMAE retained all associations but differences in procedural duration.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, TRA offered comparable outcomes to TFA in MMAE for cSDH in terms of access related and overall complications, technical feasibility, and functional outcomes. Procedural duration was slightly longer in the TRA group, and radiographic success was higher in the TFA group, with no differences in surgical rescue rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":16411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2024-021880","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: With transradial access (TRA) being more progressively used in neuroendovascular procedures, we compared TRA with transfemoral access (TFA) in middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) for chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH).

Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing MMAE for cSDH at 14 North American centers (2018-23) were included. TRA and TFA groups were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) controlling for: age, sex, concurrent surgery, previous surgery, hematoma thickness and side, midline shift, and pretreatment antithrombotics. The primary outcome was access site and overall complications, and procedure duration; secondary endpoints were surgical rescue, radiographic improvement, and technical success and length of stay.

Results: 872 patients (median age 73 years, 72.9% men) underwent 1070 MMAE procedures (54% TFA vs 46% TRA). Access site hematoma occurred in three TFA cases (0.5%; none required operative intervention) versus 0% in TRA (P=0.23), and radial-to-femoral conversion occurred in 1% of TRA cases. TRA was more used in right sided cSDH (58.4% vs 44.8%; P<0.001). Particle embolics were significantly higher in TFA while Onyx was higher in TRA (P<0.001). Following PSM, 150 matched pairs were generated. Particles were more utilized in the TFA group (53% vs 29.7%) and Onyx was more utilized in the TRA group (56.1% vs 31.5%) (P=0.001). Procedural duration was longer in the TRA group (median 68.5 min (IQR 43.1-95) vs 59 (42-84); P=0.038), and radiographic success was higher in the TFA group (87.3% vs 77.4%; P=0.036). No differences were noted in surgical rescue (8.4% vs 10.1%, P=0.35) or technical failures (2.4% vs 2%; P=0.67) between TFA and TRA. Sensitivity analysis in the standalone MMAE retained all associations but differences in procedural duration.

Conclusions: In this study, TRA offered comparable outcomes to TFA in MMAE for cSDH in terms of access related and overall complications, technical feasibility, and functional outcomes. Procedural duration was slightly longer in the TRA group, and radiographic success was higher in the TFA group, with no differences in surgical rescue rates.

股动脉与桡动脉入路脑膜中动脉栓塞治疗慢性硬膜下血肿:多中心倾向评分匹配研究。
背景:随着经桡动脉入路(TRA)在神经内血管手术中的应用越来越广泛,我们比较了经桡动脉入路与经股动脉入路(TFA)在脑膜中动脉栓塞术(MMAE)治疗慢性硬膜下血肿(cSDH)中的应用:纳入北美 14 个中心(2018-23 年)因 cSDH 而接受 MMAE 的连续患者。使用倾向得分匹配(PSM)对 TRA 组和 TFA 组进行比较,并控制以下因素:年龄、性别、同期手术、既往手术、血肿厚度和侧位、中线移位以及治疗前抗血栓药物。主要结果是入路部位和总体并发症以及手术持续时间;次要终点是手术抢救、放射学改善、技术成功率和住院时间:872名患者(中位年龄73岁,72.9%为男性)接受了1070例MMAE手术(54%为TFA,46%为TRA)。3例TFA病例(0.5%;无一例需要手术干预)发生入路部位血肿,而TRA病例为0%(P=0.23),1%的TRA病例发生了桡骨到股骨的转换。TRA 更多用于右侧 cSDH(58.4% 对 44.8%;PC 结论:在这项研究中,就入路相关并发症和总体并发症、技术可行性和功能结果而言,TRA 在治疗 cSDH 的 MMAE 中提供了与 TFA 相当的结果。TRA组的手术时间稍长,TFA组的放射学成功率更高,但手术抢救率没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
14.60%
发文量
291
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery (JNIS) is a leading peer review journal for scientific research and literature pertaining to the field of neurointerventional surgery. The journal launch follows growing professional interest in neurointerventional techniques for the treatment of a range of neurological and vascular problems including stroke, aneurysms, brain tumors, and spinal compression.The journal is owned by SNIS and is also the official journal of the Interventional Chapter of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Neuroradiology (ANZSNR), the Canadian Interventional Neuro Group, the Hong Kong Neurological Society (HKNS) and the Neuroradiological Society of Taiwan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信