Comparing Transbrachial and Transradial as Alternatives to Transfemoral Access for Large-Bore Neuro Stenting: Insights From a Propensity-Matched Study

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of transbrachial access (TBA) and transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) for large-bore neuro stenting (≥7 F). MethodsFrom January 2019 to January 2024, 4752 patients received large-bore neuro stenting in our center. The primary outcomes were procedural metrics. Safety outcomes were significant access site complications, including substantial hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, artery occlusion, and complications requiring treatment (medicine, intervention, or surgery). After propensity score matching with a ratio of 1:1:2 (TBA: TRA: TFA), adjusting for age, gender, aortic arch type, and neuro stenting as covariates, outcomes were compared between groups. ResultsForty-six TBA, 46 TRA and 92 TFA patients were enrolled. The mean age was 67.8 ± 11.2 years, comprising 127 (69.0%) carotid artery stenting and 57 (31.0%) vertebral artery stenting. The rates of technical success (TBA: 100%, TRA: 95.7%, TFA: 100%) and significant access site complications (TBA: 4.3%, TRA: 6.5%, TFA: 1.1%) were comparable between the groups (P>0.05). Compared to TFA, the TRA cohort exhibited significant delays in angiosuite arrival to puncture time (14 vs. 8 minutes, P = 0.039), puncture to angiography completion time (19 vs. 11 minutes, P = 0.027), and procedural duration (42 vs. 29 minutes, P = 0.031). There were no substantial differences in procedural time metrics between TBA (10, 14, and 31 minutes, respectively) and TFA. ConclusionsTBA and TRA as the primary access for large-bore neuro stenting are safe and effective. Procedural delays in TRA may favour TBA as the first-line alternative access to TFA.