Article Text

Download PDFPDF

E-083 The era of radial-specific catheters: a multi-center comparison of the armadillo and RIST catheters in transradial procedures
Free
  1. K El Naamani1,
  2. A Momin1,
  3. E Teichner1,
  4. G Sioutas2,
  5. M Salem2,
  6. W Gaskins1,
  7. N Saadat1,
  8. A Nguyen1,
  9. S Tjoumakaris1,
  10. M Gooch1,
  11. R Rosenwasser1,
  12. V Srinivasan2,
  13. B Jankowitz2,
  14. J Burkhardt2,
  15. P Jabbour1
  1. 1Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
  2. 2Neurosurgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

Abstract

Background As the radial approach is gaining more popularity among the neuroendovascular field, new radial-specific catheters are being manufactured Objective: We directly compared the outcomes of various transradial procedures performed using the Armadillo catheter (Q’Apel Medical Inc., Fremont, California) and the RIST radial guide catheter (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland).

Methods This is a retrospective multi-center study comparing outcomes of neuroendovascular procedures performed via the trans-radial approach using the Armadillo and RIST catheters in two institutions between 2021 and 2024.

Results The study comprised on 206 patients, 96 of whom underwent procedures using the Armadillo and 110 using the RIST. Both age and gender were comparable between both cohorts with most patients being females. In most procedures, one target vessel was catheterized (Armadillo: 94.8% vs 89.1%, p=.29) with no significant difference between both cohorts. The use of an intermediate catheter was minimal in both cohorts (Armadillo 5.2% vs RIST: 2.7%, p=.36) and the median number of major vessel catheterizations did not significantly differ between both cohorts (Armadillo: 1(1–4) vs RIST: 1 (0–6), p=.21). Failure to catheterize the target vessel was encountered in one case in each cohort (Armadillo: 1.0% vs RIST:0.9%, p=.18) and the rate did not significantly differ between both cohorts. Similarly, the rate of conversion to femoral access was comparable between both cohorts (Armadillo: 2.1% vs RIST: 1.8%, p=.55). Concerning complications, there was no significant difference in the total rate between both cohorts (Armadillo: 2% vs RIST: 3.6%, p= .55).

Conclusion No significant difference in the successful catheterization of target vessels, procedure duration, triaxial system use, complication rates, the need for transfemoral cross-over was observed between both catheters. Both devices offer high and comparable rates of technical success and low morbidity rates.

Abstract E-083 Table 1
Abstract E-083 Table 2

Disclosures K. El Naamani: None. A. Momin: None. E. Teichner: None. G. Sioutas: None. M. Salem: None. W. Gaskins: None. N. Saadat: None. A. Nguyen: None. S. Tjoumakaris: 2; C; MicroVention. M. Gooch: 2; C; Stryker. R. Rosenwasser: None. V. Srinivasan: None. B. Jankowitz: None. J. Burkhardt: None. P. Jabbour: 2; C; Medtronic, MicroVention, Cerus Endovascular, Balt.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.