Comprehensive Analysis of Neurologic Complications following Transradial Cerebral Angiography

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Park JH,
   2. Kim DY,
   3. Kim JW, et al

   . Efficacy of transradial cerebral angiography in the elderly. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2013;53:213–17 doi:10.3340/jkns.2013.53.4.213 pmid:23826476

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Patel P,
   2. Haussen DC,
   3. Nogueira RG, et al

   . The neuro radialist. Interv Cardiol Clin 2020;9:75–86 doi:10.1016/j.iccl.2019.08.008 pmid:31733743

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Stone JG,
   2. Zussman BM,
   3. Tonetti DA, et al

   . Transradial versus transfemoral approaches for diagnostic cerebral angiography: a prospective, single-center, non-inferiority comparative effectiveness study. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:993–98 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015642 pmid:31974282

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Shi M,
   2. He S

   . Transradial and transfemoral accesses for cerebral angiography: a retrospective comparative study. Neurol Res 2023;45:1063–68 doi:10.1080/01616412.2023.2257410 pmid:37751776

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Zhou WJ,
   2. Jin X,
   3. Xu C, et al

   . Trans-radial versus trans-femoral approach for cerebral angiography: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2023;18:235–43 doi:10.5114/wiitm.2022.123309 pmid:37680739

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Jo KW,
   2. Park SM,
   3. Kim SD, et al

   . Is transradial cerebral angiography feasible and safe? A single center’s experience. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2010;47:332–37 doi:10.3340/jkns.2010.47.5.332 pmid:20539791

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Tso MK,
   2. Rajah GB,
   3. Dossani RH, et al

   . Learning curves for transradial access versus transfemoral access in diagnostic cerebral angiography: a case series. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;14:174–78 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017460 pmid:34078647

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Almallouhi E,
   2. Al Kasab S,
   3. Sattur MG, et al

   . Incorporation of transradial approach in neuroendovascular procedures: defining benchmarks for rates of complications and conversion to femoral access. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:1122–26 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-015893 pmid:32217626

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. von Elm E,
   2. Altman DG,
   3. Egger M

   ; STROBE Initiative, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:344–49 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 pmid:18313558

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Casserly IP,
    2. Sachar R,
    3. Yadav JS

    . Manual of Peripheral Vascular Intervention. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005
11. 11.↵
    1. Weibel J,
    2. Fields WS

    . Tortuosity, coiling, and kinking of the internal carotid artery. I. etiology and radiographic anatomy. Neurology 1965;15:7–18 doi:10.1212/wnl.15.1.7 pmid:14257832

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Metz H,
    2. Bannister R,
    3. Murray-Leslie R, et al

    . Kinking of the internal carotid artery: in relation to cerebrovascular disease. Lancet 1961;1:424–26 doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(61)90004-6 pmid:13769898

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Samuels OB,
    2. Joseph GJ,
    3. Lynn MJ, et al

    . A standardized method for measuring intracranial arterial stenosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:643–46

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    1. Barnett HJM,
    2. Taylor DW,
    3. Haynes RB, et al

    ; North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 1991;325:445–53 doi:10.1056/NEJM199108153250701 pmid:1852179

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Lee DH,
    2. Ahn JH,
    3. Jeong SS, et al

    . Routine transradial access for conventional cerebral angiography: a single operator’s experience of its feasibility and safety. Br J Radiol 2004;77:831–38 doi:10.1259/bjr/89933527 pmid:15482994

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Leffers AM,
    2. Wagner A

    . Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography. A retrospective study of complication rate and patient risk factors. Acta Radiology 2000;41:204–10 doi:10.1080/028418500127345299 pmid:10866072

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Kaufmann TJ,
    2. Huston J,
    3. Mandrekar JN, et al

    . Complications of diagnostic cerebral angiography: evaluation of 19,826 consecutive patients. Radiology 2007;243:812–19 doi:10.1148/radiol.2433060536 pmid:17517935

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Kosanke J,
    2. Bergstralh E

    . Match One or More Controls to Cases Using the GREEDY Algorithm. Mayo Clinic College of Medicine; 2004.
19. 19.↵
    1. Shaban S,
    2. Huasen B,
    3. Haridas A, et al

    . Digital subtraction angiography in cerebrovascular disease: current practice and perspectives on diagnosis, acute treatment and prognosis. Acta Neurol Belg 2022;122:763–80 doi:10.1007/s13760-021-01805-z pmid:34553337

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Fifi JT,
    2. Meyers PM,
    3. Lavine SD, et al

    . Complications of modern diagnostic cerebral angiography in an academic medical center. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20:442–47 doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2009.01.012 pmid:19246211

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Tafelmeier S,
    2. Kesseler E,
    3. Iancu AM, et al

    . Spectrum of complications and complication rates after diagnostic catheter angiography in neuroradiology. Clin Neuroradiol 2023;33:763–68 doi:10.1007/s00062-023-01273-3 pmid:36894748

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Thiex R,
    2. Norbash AM,
    3. Frerichs KU

    . The safety of dedicated-team catheter-based diagnostic cerebral angiography in the era of advanced noninvasive imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:230–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1803 pmid:19779004

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Willinsky RA,
    2. Taylor SM,
    3. TerBrugge K, et al

    . Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography: prospective analysis of 2,899 procedures and review of the literature. Radiology 2003;227:522–28 doi:10.1148/radiol.2272012071 pmid:12637677

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Shen J,
    2. Karki M,
    3. Jiang T, et al

    . Complications associated with diagnostic cerebral angiography: a retrospective analysis of 644 consecutive cerebral angiographic cases. Neurol India 2018;66:1154–58 doi:10.4103/0028-3886.237018 pmid:30038108

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Dawkins AA,
    2. Evans AL,
    3. Wattam J, et al

    . Complications of cerebral angiography: a prospective analysis of 2,924 consecutive procedures. Neuroradiology 2007;49:753–59 doi:10.1007/s00234-007-0252-y pmid:17594083

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    1. Ge B,
    2. Wei Y

    . Comparison of transfemoral cerebral angiography and transradial cerebral angiography following a shift in practice during four years at a single center in China. Med Sci Monit 2020;26:e921631 doi:10.12659/MSM.921631 pmid:32210222

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Carraro do Nascimento V,
    2. de Villiers L,
    3. Hughes I, et al

    . Transradial versus transfemoral arterial approach for cerebral angiography and the frequency of embolic events on diffusion weighted MRI. J Neurointerv Surg 2023;15:723–27 doi:10.1136/jnis-2022-019009 pmid:35868855

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    1. Keeley EC,
    2. Grines CL

    . Scraping of aortic debris by coronary guiding catheters: a prospective evaluation of 1,000 cases. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:1861–65 doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(98)00497-5 pmid:9857864

    FREE Full Text