Transradial versus transfemoral access for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: A retrospective cohort study

Abstract

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare procedural and clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treated via transradial access (TRA) mechanical thrombectomy (MT) versus conventional transfemoral access (TFA). MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with AIS treated with TRA versus TFA MT at our tertiary comprehensive stroke center. Access choice was individualized based on occlusion site, aortic and arch anatomy. Outcomes were extracted from our institutional stroke registry and included procedural time, Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) reperfusion score, NIHSS, 90-day mRS and 90-day mortality. Comparisons were performed using Student t-Test and Fischer's exact test as appropriate. Results175 mechanical thrombectomies were performed during the study interval; 39 (22%) were performed via TRA and 136 (79%) TFA. Access to reperfusion time was 36.3 ± 24.5 minutes in the TRA group and 21.9 ± 17.6 in the TFA group (p<0.001). The proportion of patients with a TICI reperfusion score of 2b or 3 was similar in both groups (TRA: 34 (87%) vs. TFA: 121 (89%) p=0.559. The median 90-day mRS was similar between both groups (p=0.170), as was the 90-day mortality (p = 0.509). ConclusionsWhile TFA is faster in our cohort, TFA and TRA are both safe and effective for MT in acute ischemic stroke. While TFA remains mainstay, TRA can be valuable in variant anatomy despite its technical limitations. Individualizing access based on advanced imaging and patient factors may improve practice; however, updates in catheter and access technology are necessary to optimize outcomes with TRA.