You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Radial artery diameter: a comprehensive systematic review of anatomy

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Neuroimaging
Review
Radial artery diameter: a comprehensive systematic review of anatomy
  1. Waseem Wahood1,
  2. Sherief Ghozy2,
  3. Abdulaziz Al-Abdulghani3,
  4. David F Kallmes2
  1. 1Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA
  2. 2Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  3. 3Department of Neurology and Ophthalmology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
  1. Correspondence to Waseem Wahood, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314, USA; ww412{at}mynsu.nova.edu

Abstract

Aims The objective of this systematic review is to determine with the highest accuracy the average radial artery (RA) diameter overall and in certain subgroups. The aim of this study is to provide assistance in the development of fitting transradial devices, an increasingly popular intervention.

Methods Several databases were used to extract appropriate studies highlighting RA diameter. Databases used in the generation of this study were Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. RA diameter was determined overall, in males versus females, adults only, adults+children, in the presence of comorbidities, and finally RA diameter in the context of various vasodilators.

Results A total of 71 studies were included. The average RA diameter overall was determined to be 2.62±0.15 mm in children+adults and 2.70±0.15 mm in adults only. In comparison to an RA diameter of 2.68±0.24 mm in adult males, the diameter was found to be 2.27±0.27 mm in adult females (p=0.028). As for comorbidities, the mean RA diameter in adult patients with hypertension and congestive heart failure was 2.72±0.37 mm and 2.80±0.25 mm, respectively. Finally, the mean RA diameter with nitrate and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor use was 2.97±0.53 mm and 2.82±0.29 mm respectively. For comparison, the average outer diameter of a 5 French introducer sheath is 2.29 mm and a 6 French introducer sheath is 2.62 mm.

Conclusions The findings presented in this study will help determine the most appropriate transradial device to use in several different populations in the context of vasodilator usage or the absence thereof.

  • vessel wall
  • statistics
  • pharmacology

https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-018534

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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work: WW, SG, AA-A. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content: WW, SG, AA-A. Final approval of the version to be published: DFK. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved: WW, SG, AA-A, DFK.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.