Safety and efficacy of radial access in trauma in 65 trauma endovascular cases

Objective: Endovascular techniques in trauma surgery are becoming increasingly important in patient management, with procedures such as pelvic and splenic angioembolization becoming the standard of care for certain injuries. Traditionally, such interventions are performed via femoral access, although the morbidity of this approach is not insignificant (3%-10%). Transradial access (TRA) is an attractive alternative, pioneered by cardiologists, with low rates of access site complications in patients undergoing coronary intervention. Recently, this technology has extended to other interventions. The aim of this study was to present the initial experience of a radial program in a busy trauma center, with specific regard to safety and complications. Methods: The medical records of trauma patients undergoing endovascular procedures via TRA between March 2018 and December 2018 were queried for procedural and postoperative data. Demography and injury characteristics were presented for the overall cohort, followed by a comparison of procedural data and complications between laterality. Continuous variables were compared using a two-tailed t-test and categorical variables were compared using a χ² test. Results: Over a 9-month period, 65 patients underwent 81 interventions via TRA, most commonly solid organ or pelvic angiography/embolization. Radial artery access was achieved in all patients, with procedural success achieved in all but two patients (n = 63 [96.9%]) who had hypoplastic radial artery anatomy, who underwent ulnar access. The overall technique-related complication rate was 1.5% with no difference observed between laterality (n = 1; P =.523). One patient with an admission Glasgow Coma Score of 3 and coagulopathy developed radial artery thrombosis after pelvic angiography via right TRA. Mortality was seen in seven patients (10.8%) owing to hemorrhagic shock (n = 3 [42.8%]) or multiorgan failure (n = 4 [57.1%]). There were no cases of postprocedural access site bleeding, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, vascular injury, intraoperative arrhythmia or cerebrovascular accident, arteriovenous fistula formation, or infection. Conclusions: TRA is a feasible and low-risk alternative for endovascular intervention in the trauma patient. It yields good technical success with low morbidity. Although larger studies are needed to establish the full efficacy of TRA at the multi-institutional level, this single-institution study demonstrates the legitimacy of an alternative means for endovascular intervention in the trauma patient.