Objectives

The transradial approach (TRA) is technically feasible for both diagnostic and therapeutic neurointerventions. It improves patient comfort and is not associated with increased procedural complications when compared to the transfemoral approach (TFA). To date, no studies have looked at barriers to adoption of TRA in the neurointerventionalist community. This study aims to obtain neurointerventionalist perspectives on their adoption of TRA.

Materials and Methods

Online survey distributed to neurointerventionalists.

Results

A total of 55 neurointerventionalists, 52 of whom utilized TRA, responded to our survey. Overall, participants were not concerned about TRA's technical feasibility for diagnostic or therapeutic neurointerventions or about procedural complications. Most of our cohort adopted TRA due to its increased patient comfort and to reduce access site complications. In-institution interventionalists were strongly perceived to be the most effective method of teaching TRA when compared to other methods. Catheters and equipment issues were reported by about 30% of our cohort as a barrier to TRA adoption.

Conclusions

The neurointerventionalist community largely perceives TRA to be technically feasible and was not concerned about its procedural complications. In-person institutionalists are strongly perceived to be the most effective method of teaching the approach. A significant barrier to adoption seems to be related to catheters and equipment issues.

中文翻译：

---

经神经放射介入方法的采用：对目前从业者的一项全国调查

目标

经radi动脉途径（TRA）在诊断和治疗性神经干预方面在技术上都是可行的。与经股动脉入路（TFA）相比，它可以提高患者的舒适度，并且不会增加手术并发症。迄今为止，尚无研究探讨神经介入专家界采用TRA的障碍。这项研究旨在获得神经介入治疗者对其采用TRA的看法。

材料和方法

在线调查已分发给神经介入专家。

结果

共有55位神经介入专家对我们的调查做出了回应，其中52位使用了TRA。总体而言，参与者并不担心TRA在诊断或治疗性神经干预方面的技术可行性或程序并发症。我们的大多数队列研究都采用TRA，因为它提高了患者的舒适度并减少了进入部位的并发症。与其他方法相比，机构干预专家被认为是教授TRA的最有效方法。据报告，大约有30％的人将导管和设备问题视为采用TRA的障碍。

结论

神经介入治疗团体在很大程度上认为TRA在技术上是可行的，并不关心其手术并发症。面对面的制度主义者被强烈认为是教授该方法的最有效方法。采用的重大障碍似乎与导管和设备问题有关。