Most common misconceptions about transradial approach in interventional radiology: results from an international survey

PURPOSE We aimed to assess the use of transradial approach (TRA) among interventional radiologists (IRs) and its perceived advantages and disadvantages that have driven the decision to select or refuse this endovascular approach. METHODS A multicountry survey of 20 multiple- choice questions was conducted among interventional radiologists in Europe and the United States. Questions assessed demographic information of the participants and whether they performed TRA routinely, pre-procedural screening modalities for TRA, TRA technique, complications, reasons for adopting TRA and reasons for not adopting TRA. A total of 187 IRs completed the survey. RESULTS One hundred respondents (53.5%) performed TRA routinely. TRA was chosen based on the procedure (90%, mostly embolization) and physical examination (75%). Patient preference (79%) and faster patient ambulation/discharge (73%) were the main drivers for TRA. Long learning curve (45%), lack of training (32%), prolonged procedural time (31%), potential risk for neurological complications (31%), and increase in radiation exposure (28%) were the most frequent detractors. TRA use was significantly higher in the US than in Europe (p < 0.001) and among male IRs than female IRs (p < 0.01). There was a declining trend in use of TRA with advanced age and more years of experience of IRs. CONCLUSION TRA usage among IRs is limited by issues that can easily be addressed. This survey could help IRs to better understand the real advantages of TRA and how it can offer higher value in patient care.