发布求助

文献互助智能选刊最新文献

远端与近端经桡骨通路诊断脑血管造影：单中心经验

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Journal of Clinical Neuroscience Pub Date : 2025-05-06 DOI:10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111283

Shan Jiang , Shanlin Yu , Baodong Gu , Xin Li , Hui Xiao , Dandan Zhao , Xianjun Ma

{"title":"远端与近端经桡骨通路诊断脑血管造影：单中心经验","authors":"Shan Jiang , Shanlin Yu , Baodong Gu , Xin Li , Hui Xiao , Dandan Zhao , Xianjun Ma","doi":"10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>To compare the safety and effectiveness of cerebral angiography via distal transradial access puncture (dTRA) versus proximal radial artery puncture (pTRA).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 494 patients undergoing cerebral angiography were randomly assigned to either the dTRA or pTRA groups in a 1:1 ratio. The study evaluated puncture success rates, puncture time, procedural fluoroscopy time, operation time, and the incidence of complications between the two groups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The success rate for dTRA was 92.7 % (229/247), compared to 99.19 % (245/247) for pTRA. In cases where dTRA failed, switching to pTRA achieved a 100 % success rate (18/18). The average puncture time for dTRA was 6.61 ± 4.12 min (p = 0.021), compared to 5.74 ± 4.12 min for pTRA. Fluoroscopy time was 8.03 ± 3.50 min for dTRA and 8.18 ± 3.30 min for pTRA (p = 0.639). The procedural operation time was 17.33 ± 5.38 min for dTRA and 16.84 ± 5.11 min for pTRA (p = 0.32). The incidence of radial artery occlusion, hand edema, and subcutaneous hematoma was significantly lower in the dTRA group compared to the pTRA group.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Cerebral angiography via the dTRA approach is safe and effective, with a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion. Failure of dTRA does not preclude subsequent successful pTRA, making dTRA a viable option for cerebral angiography.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15487,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","volume":"137 ","pages":"Article 111283"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distal versus proximal transradial access for diagnostic cerebral angiography: A single-center experience\",\"authors\":\"Shan Jiang , Shanlin Yu , Baodong Gu , Xin Li , Hui Xiao , Dandan Zhao , Xianjun Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111283\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>To compare the safety and effectiveness of cerebral angiography via distal transradial access puncture (dTRA) versus proximal radial artery puncture (pTRA).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 494 patients undergoing cerebral angiography were randomly assigned to either the dTRA or pTRA groups in a 1:1 ratio. The study evaluated puncture success rates, puncture time, procedural fluoroscopy time, operation time, and the incidence of complications between the two groups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The success rate for dTRA was 92.7 % (229/247), compared to 99.19 % (245/247) for pTRA. In cases where dTRA failed, switching to pTRA achieved a 100 % success rate (18/18). The average puncture time for dTRA was 6.61 ± 4.12 min (p = 0.021), compared to 5.74 ± 4.12 min for pTRA. Fluoroscopy time was 8.03 ± 3.50 min for dTRA and 8.18 ± 3.30 min for pTRA (p = 0.639). The procedural operation time was 17.33 ± 5.38 min for dTRA and 16.84 ± 5.11 min for pTRA (p = 0.32). The incidence of radial artery occlusion, hand edema, and subcutaneous hematoma was significantly lower in the dTRA group compared to the pTRA group.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Cerebral angiography via the dTRA approach is safe and effective, with a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion. Failure of dTRA does not preclude subsequent successful pTRA, making dTRA a viable option for cerebral angiography.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"137 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111283\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967586825002553\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967586825002553","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景：比较桡动脉远端穿刺（dTRA）与桡动脉近端穿刺（pTRA）的安全性和有效性。方法将494例脑血管造影患者按1:1的比例随机分为dTRA组和pTRA组。评估两组患者穿刺成功率、穿刺时间、透视时间、手术时间及并发症发生率。结果dTRA的成功率为92.7% (229/247)，pTRA的成功率为99.19%（245/247）。在dTRA失败的情况下，切换到pTRA达到100%的成功率（18/18）。dTRA平均穿刺时间为6.61±4.12 min (p = 0.021)， pTRA平均穿刺时间为5.74±4.12 min。dTRA透视时间为8.03±3.50 min， pTRA透视时间为8.18±3.30 min （p = 0.639）。手术时间dTRA为17.33±5.38 min， pTRA为16.84±5.11 min （p = 0.32）。与pTRA组相比，dTRA组桡动脉闭塞、手部水肿和皮下血肿的发生率明显降低。结论经dTRA入路脑血管造影安全有效，桡动脉闭塞发生率低。dTRA的失败并不妨碍后续pTRA的成功，使dTRA成为脑血管造影的可行选择。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Distal versus proximal transradial access for diagnostic cerebral angiography: A single-center experience

Background

To compare the safety and effectiveness of cerebral angiography via distal transradial access puncture (dTRA) versus proximal radial artery puncture (pTRA).

Methods

A total of 494 patients undergoing cerebral angiography were randomly assigned to either the dTRA or pTRA groups in a 1:1 ratio. The study evaluated puncture success rates, puncture time, procedural fluoroscopy time, operation time, and the incidence of complications between the two groups.

Results

The success rate for dTRA was 92.7 % (229/247), compared to 99.19 % (245/247) for pTRA. In cases where dTRA failed, switching to pTRA achieved a 100 % success rate (18/18). The average puncture time for dTRA was 6.61 ± 4.12 min (p = 0.021), compared to 5.74 ± 4.12 min for pTRA. Fluoroscopy time was 8.03 ± 3.50 min for dTRA and 8.18 ± 3.30 min for pTRA (p = 0.639). The procedural operation time was 17.33 ± 5.38 min for dTRA and 16.84 ± 5.11 min for pTRA (p = 0.32). The incidence of radial artery occlusion, hand edema, and subcutaneous hematoma was significantly lower in the dTRA group compared to the pTRA group.

Conclusions

Cerebral angiography via the dTRA approach is safe and effective, with a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion. Failure of dTRA does not preclude subsequent successful pTRA, making dTRA a viable option for cerebral angiography.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Clinical Neuroscience

Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 医学-临床神经学

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

402

审稿时长

40 days

期刊介绍： This International journal, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, publishes articles on clinical neurosurgery and neurology and the related neurosciences such as neuro-pathology, neuro-radiology, neuro-ophthalmology and neuro-physiology. The journal has a broad International perspective, and emphasises the advances occurring in Asia, the Pacific Rim region, Europe and North America. The Journal acts as a focus for publication of major clinical and laboratory research, as well as publishing solicited manuscripts on specific subjects from experts, case reports and other information of interest to clinicians working in the clinical neurosciences.

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

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