Radial Versus Femoral Arterial Access for Trauma Endovascular Interventions: A Non-Inferiority Study.

BACKGROUND The majority of endovascular interventions for trauma are performed using transfemoral access (TFA). Transradial access (TRA) is a recently integrated alternative at the authors' institution. This noninferiority study compares the technical success and complication rate of TRA compared with TFA. METHODS All patients undergoing emergent endovascular interventions between March 2016 and March 2019 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Data were collected on access type, complications, and procedural success. A noninferiority margin was established from previous randomized trials for technical success (0.475) and complications (0.015). RESULTS Over 3 years, 96 patients underwent TRA and 335 patients received TFA. The overall technical success rate was 98.1%, without significance based on access strategy (p= 0.078). All femoral arteries and 97.9% (n = 94) of radial arteries were accessed as intended. Complications occurred in 1.0% of TRA and 9.9% of TFA groups (p= 0.002). In the TFA group, complications included access site bleeding, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, lower limb ischemia, and femoral artery thrombosis (n = 6, 14, 3, 3, and 4, respectively). In the TRA group, complications included radial artery thrombosis (n = 1). Transradial access procedural success and complication rate fell within the lower bound confidence interval of the noninferiority margin, demonstrated the noninferiority of TRA in this data set. CONCLUSION Transradial access in a cohort of trauma patients undergoing endovascular intervention does not appear to be inferior to TFA in relation to technical success and complications. For patients where groin access may be challenging, TRA is a useful, efficacious, and safe alternative. Longer-term study is required to fully characterize the advantages and disadvantages of TRA compared with TFA.