Keywords:
Multicentre study, Not applicable, Prospective, Haemodynamics / Flow dynamics, Education and training, Technical aspects, Puncture, Arterial access, Fluoroscopy, Catheter arteriography, Professional issues, Interventional vascular, Arteries / Aorta, Interventional Radiology
Authors:
A. Posa1, R. Iezzi1, F. Carchesio2, A. Tanzilli1, R. Manfredi1; 1Rome/IT, 2Roma/IT
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2020/C-12396
Results
74 interventional radiologists completed the survey (74% male, 26% female).
66% of the respondents was >40 years-old and 43% with >15 years of experience.
69% of respondents performed US-guided puncture in all patients.
92% of the interventional radiologists deemed mandatory the intra-procedural infusion of heparin and vasodilators via the radial vascular sheath to prevent complications.
TRA to TFA conversion rate was lower than 5% in 54% of the respondents.
The most common reasons to not perform TRA were the perceived longer learning curve (26%) and the prolonged procedural times (18%).
On the other side, TRA was preferred by 18% of participants, mostly due to patient preference (34%) and reduction of bleeding complications (27%).
Most of the reported disadvantages of TRA were not confirmed by current literature: e.g., in terms of TRA-induced stroke, Ratib et al. retrospectively compared TRA and TFA during percutaneous coronary interventions in a period of 5 years, finding no differences in terms of stroke occurrence.