Prospective Study on Total Fluoroscopic Time in Patients Undergoing Uterine Artery Embolization: Comparing Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches
- 176 Downloads
Comparing total fluoroscopy time (FT) to perform uterine artery embolization (UAE) with transradial approach (TRA) versus transfemoral approach (TFA). Our hypothesis was that there would be no significant procedural time penalty incurred, despite the learning curve associated with adopting a new approach.
Materials and Methods
A cohort study was undertaken including 66 consecutive patients undergoing UAE with either TRA/TFA between January and September 2015. Total FT was recorded prospectively for each procedure, and data subsequently analyzed retrospectively. Each operator had at least 2 years of experience as an interventional radiologist having performed at least 200 TFA UAEs. All operators had recently incorporated TRA into their practice.
A total of 39 TFA and 27 TRA cases were included in the study; mean age for TFA group was 44.4 years (± 4.9) and for TRA group was 45.1 years (± 4.9) (p = 0.59). Mean FTs were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.86) despite a learning curve associated with TRA: The mean total FT with TFA was 20.36 min (± 9.48) compared to TRA 20.12 min (± 7.67).
FTs for TRA UAE were comparable to TFA UAE, even though TRA had been recently adopted as a new approach. Despite the learning curve associated with developing a novel technique, operators should not expect the efficiency of their service to be significantly compromised. Introducing this safe and effective method of vascular access should therefore be considered.
KeywordsUterine fibroid embolization Uterine artery embolization Transradial Fluoroscopic time
List of Abbreviations
Dose area product
Uterine artery embolization
Percutaneous coronary interventions
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Dr. Mortensen, Dr. Ho and Dr. Legiehn declare that they have nothing to disclose. Dr. Chung reports personal fees from Merit Medical, personal fees from Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. Dr. Liu reports other (independent director) from Merit Medical, grants from Seimens Medical, outside the submitted work. Dr. Machan reports other (medical advisory board) from Boston Scientific Corp, other (scientific advisory committee) from Cook Inc, outside the submitted work. Dr. Klass reports personal fees from Merit Medical, personal fees from Cook Medical, personal fees from Phillips Healthcare, personal fees from Liva Nova, grants from Biolife, outside the submitted work.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Feldman DN, Swaminathan RV, Kaltenbach LA, Baklanov DV, Kim LK, Wong SC, Minutello RM, Messenger JC, Moussa I, Garratt KN, Piana RN, Hillegass WB, Cohen MG, Gilchrist IC, Rao SV. Adoption of radial access and comparison of outcomes to femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention an updated report from the national cardiovascular data registry (2007–2012). Circulation. 2013;127(23):2295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, Niemelä K, Xavier D, Widimsky P, Budaj A, Niemelä M, Valentin V, Lewis BS, Avezum A, Steg PG, Rao SV, Gao P, Afzal R, Joyner CD, Chrolavicius S, Mehta SR. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9775):1409–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Agostoni P, Biondi-Zoccai GGL, de Benedictis ML, Rigattieri S, Turri M, Anselmi M, Vassanelli C, Zardini P, Louvard Y, Hamon M. Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures; Systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(2):349–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Kedev S, Kalpak O, Dharma S, Antov S, Kostov J, Pejkov H, Spiroski I. Complete transitioning to the radial approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a real-world single-center registry of 1808 consecutive patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. J Invasive Cardiol. 2014;26(9):475–82.Google Scholar
- 10.Roy AK, Garot P, Louvard Y, Neylon A, Spaziano M, Sawaya FJ, Fernandez L, Roux Y, Blanc R, Piotin M, Champagne S, Tavolaro O, Benamer H, Hovasse T, Chevalier B, Lefèvre T, Unterseeh T. Comparison of transradial vs transfemoral access for aortoiliac and femoropopliteal interventions: a single-center experience. J Endovasc Ther. 2016;23(6):880–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Roussanov O, Wilson SJ, Henley K, Estacio G, Hill J, Dogan B, Henley WF, Jarmukli N. Cost-effectiveness of the radial versus femoral artery approach to diagnostic cardiac catheterization. J Invasive Cardiol. 2007;19(8):349–53.Google Scholar
- 13.Applegate R, Sacrinty M, Schafer P, Smith J, Gandhi S, Kutcher M, Santos R, Cecile A, Little W. Cost effectiveness of radial access for diagnostic cardiac catheterization and coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(4):E375–84.Google Scholar
- 14.Mamas MA, Tosh J, Hulme W, Hoskins N, Bungey G, Ludman P, de Belder M, Kwok CS, Verin N, Kinnaird T, Bennett E, Curzen N, Nolan J. No title health economic analysis of access site practice in England during changes in practice: insights from the British cardiovascular interventional society. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018;11(5):e004482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabrò P, Rubartelli P, Garducci S, Andò G, Santarelli A, Galli M, Garbo R, Bramucci E, Ierna S, Briguori C, Cortese B, Limbruno U, Violini R, Presbitero P, De Cesare N, Sganzerla P, Ausiello A, Tosi P, Sardella G, Sabate M, Brugaletta S, Saccone G, Vandoni P, Zingarelli A, Liso A, Rigattieri S, Di Lorenzo E, Vigna C, Palmieri C, Falcone C, De Caterina R, Caputo M, Esposito G, Lupi A, Mazzarotto P, Varbella F, Zaro T, Nazzaro M, Rao SV, Van ‘T Hof AWJ, Omerovic E, Uguccioni L, Tamburino C, Ferrari F, Ceravolo R, Tarantino F, Casu G, Mazzarotto P, Cremonesi A, Saia F, Guiducci V, Dellavalle A, Curello S, Mangiacapra F, Evola R, Liistro F, Creaco M, Colombo A, Perkan A, De Servi S, Fischetti D, Pucci E, Romagnoli E, Moretti C, Moretti L, Turturo M, Bonmassari R, Penzo C, Loi B, Mauro C, Gabrielli G, Micari A, Petronio AS, Comeglio M, Fresco C, Pasquetto G, Belloni F, Amico F. Design and rationale for the minimizing adverse haemorrhagic events by transradial access site and systemic implementation of angioX program. Am Heart J. 2014;168(6):838–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Chase AJ, Fretz EB, Warburton WP, Klinke WP, Carere RG, Pi D, Berry B, Hilton JD. Association of the arterial access site at angioplasty with transfusion and mortality: the M.O.R.T.A.L study (Mortality benefit of Reduced Transfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention via the Arm or Leg). Heart. 2008;94(8):1019–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Rigattieri S, Sciahbasi A, Drefahl S, Mussino E, Cera M, Di Russo C, Fedele S, Pugliese FR. Transradial access and radiation exposure in diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures. J Invasive Cardiol. 2014;26(9):469–74.Google Scholar
- 27.Jolly SS, Cairns J, Niemela K, Steg PG, Natarajan MK, Cheema AN, Rao SV, Cantor WJ, Dzavik V, Budaj A, Sheth T, Valentin V, Fung A, Widimsky P, Ferrari E, Gao P, Jedrzejowski B, Mehta SR. Effect of radial versus femoral access on radiation dose and the importance of procedural volume: a substudy of the multicenter randomized RIVAL trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(3):258–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar