Prone transradial catheterization for combined single-session endovascular and percutaneous interventions: approach, technical success, safety, and outcomes in 15 patients

PURPOSE:We aimed to report approach, safety, technical success, and clinical outcomes of prone trans- radial access (PTRA) and demonstrate feasibility for procedures requiring simultaneous arterial intervention and prone percutaneous access. METHODS:Fifteen patients underwent PTRA, seven females (47%) and eight males (53%), mean age of 55 years (range, 19–78 years). All patients underwent PTRA for combined transarterial and posterior-approach percutaneous interventions. Variables included sheath size (French, F), type of anesthesia, arterial intervention technical success, posterior-approach percutaneous intervention technical success, estimated blood loss (mL), fluoroscopy and procedure time, complications, and follow-up.RESULTS:Mean sheath size was 4 F (range, 4–6 F; SD = 0.5). Arterial interventions included transarterial embolization of renal (n=6), hepatic (n=2), and pelvic vessels (n=2), diagnostic arteriography (n=4), and embolization of an arteriovenous malformation (n=1). Posterior-approach intervention technical success was 100% (15/15). PTRA technical success was 100% (15/15). Posterior-approach percutaneous interventions included retroperitoneal (n=5) and pelvic (n=1) mass biopsies, nephrostomy tube placement (n=2), cryoablation of pelvic (n=2) and renal (n=1) masses, sclerotherapy of arteriovenous malformations (n=2), foreign body removal from the renal collecting system (n=2), ablation of a renal tumor (n=1), intracavitary injection of pulmonary mycetoma (n=1), and ablation and cementoplasty of a vertebral body tumor (n=1). The biopsies were diagnostic (6/6). There were no minor or major access-site complications.CONCLUSION:PTRA is a safe and feasible method for performing combined arterial and posterior approach percutaneous interventions without the need for repositioning.