Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Correspondence on ‘Transradial versus transfemoral arterial approach for cerebral angiography and the frequency of embolic events on diffusion weighted MRI’ by Carraro do Nascimento et al
  1. Vikas Bhatia
  1. Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr Vikas Bhatia, Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India; drvikasbhatia{at}

Statistics from

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.

We read with great interest the article by Carraro do Nascimento et al describing the frequency of emboli on diffusion weighted imaging after transfemoral (TFA) and transradial approach (TRA).1 They have shown that TRA can show increased emboli compared with TFA, although performed by experienced operators as in their case. A few points are worth mentioning in this study.

The authors used a 5 French (5F) size catheter for their TRA cases and a 4F size catheter for their TFA cases. We believe this may cause some discrepancy as a 5F catheter can create greater friction …

View Full Text


  • Contributors I am the sole contributor to this manuscript’s design and data.

  • 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; internally 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.