Table 1

Recent single arm retrospective case series of transradial neuroendovascular procedures

RefStudy populationNStudy designAccess site complication rateOverall complication rateCrossover rateFollow-up length and methodWeaknesses
5Patients undergoing ‘radial first’ diagnostic/interventional

neuroendovascular procedure		121

  • Prospective cohort

  • Single center

7 (5.79%)8 (6.61%)30 (24.8%)No uniform protocol for follow-up

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Possible misclassification bias (no uniform follow-up)

71Diagnostic and intervention
(aneurysm, flow diversion, stroke)		2203

  • Retrospective cohort

  • Multicenter

14 (0.6%)N/A114 (5.2%)No uniform protocol for follow-up

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Possible misclassification bias (no uniform follow-up)

72Patients undergoing repeat TRA at same access site133

  • Retrospective cohort

  • Single center

7 (5.3%)N/A7 (5.3%)Follow-up at each repeat procedurePatient selection bias (non-randomized)
73Intracranial aneurysm coiling in anterior circulation103

  • Retrospective cohort

  • Single center

0%0%0%30 day follow-up with Allen test and/or Doppler

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Small sample size

74Anterior circulation interventions130

  • Retrospective cohort

  • Single center

0%0%0%No uniform protocol for follow-up

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Possible misclassification bias (no uniform follow-up)

  • Small sample size

75Carotid artery stenting723Systematic review
and meta-analysis		37 (5.12%)61 (8.44%)66 (9.13%)No uniform protocol for follow-up

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Possible misclassification bias (no uniform follow-up)

29Reaccessing occluded radial artery for neurointervention106

  • Retrospective cohort

  • Single center

0%N/A6 (5.66%)Short-term (unspecified) follow-up for complications

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Possible misclassification bias (no uniform follow-up)

  • Small sample size

76Thrombectomy in acute stroke309Systematic review
and meta-analysis		5/280 (1.4%)N/A7.2% (mean)No uniform protocol for follow-up.

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Possible misclassification bias (no uniform follow-up)

77Diagnostic and interventional (aneurysm, stroke)225

  • Retrospective cohort

  • Single center

3 (1.33%)N/A5 (2.22%)No uniform protocol for follow-up

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Possible misclassification bias (no uniform follow-up)

78Cerebral angiography148

  • Retrospective cohort

  • Single center

10 (6.75%)10 (6.75%)7 (4.7%)Barbeau test at discharge; telephone interviews with 80 patients during postoperative period

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Possible misclassification bias (lacks US follow-up)

  • Small sample size

  • Attrition bias

79Angiography, intracranial/head and neck intervention328

  • Retrospective cohort

  • Single center

8 (2.4%)8 (2.4%)26 (7.9%)30-day follow-up outpatient visit: evaluation of access site and radial pulse

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Possible misclassification bias (lacks US follow-up)

80Diagnostic angiography (93%)121

  • Retrospective cohort

  • Single center

0 (0%)1 (0.8%)6 (5%)Not collected

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Misclassification bias (no follow-up)

81Diagnostic and intervention (embolization, coiling)506

  • Prospective cohort

  • Single center

4 (0.8%)4 (0.8%)33 (6.5%)No uniform protocol for follow-up

  • Patient selection bias (non-randomized)

  • Possible misclassification bias (no uniform follow-up)

Total515695/5156 (1.8%)92/2180 (4.2%)300/4847 (6.2%) 

  • N/A, not available; TRA, transradial access; US, ultrasound.