Misra, Sanjay

Purpose: To determine the factors that affect mean absorbed dose and fluoroscopic times during renal artery stent placement. Materials and Methods: After institutional review board approval, the HI-IQ database was queried for patients undergoing renal artery stent placement only from January 2007 to June 2010. Procedures that were performed as part of other procedures such as iliac artery stents were excluded. The HI-IQ data included fluoroscopy time ( f) and radiation dose (mGy). Demographic, medical history, procedural details, and advanced preprocedural renal artery stent imaging were obtained. Variables (number of stents, average body mass index , number of stents placed per year and number of years’ service of an interventional physician, pre-procedural imaging, and use of embolic protection device) were analyzed using a t test after log transformation and testing for variance with an F test. Results: A total of 134 patients (75 males, 70.6 ± 10.5 years old) underwent the placement of 177 renal artery stents (unilateral [n = 95], average stent per patient = 1.3). Mean fluoroscopy time was 15.6 minutes and mean absorbed dose to the patient was 1729 mGy. The average fluoroscopic time and absorbed dose was significantly higher with bilateral stent placement compared to unilateral placement (13.8 vs 19.7 minutes, P = .002; 1803 vs 2380 mGy, P = .03). The average fluoroscopic time was significantly higher in patients undergoing abdominal aortogram prior to renal artery selection and stent placement. Conclusion: The placement of more than 1 stent with an abdominal angiogram prior to renal artery stent placement results in increased fluoroscopic time and mean absorbed dose.

Background: Transradial access for coronary intervention is associated with reduced access complications compared with transfemoral. Transradial access for renal artery intervention has been less well studied. Safety compared with transfemoral access is undetermined. Methods and Results: We evaluated the feasibility of transradial renal intervention (n = 11 patients) and compared safety parameters with a matched group of transfemoral controls (n = 44). All transradial interventions were successful with no complications. Femoral crossover was required in one due to insufficient guide length. Compared with transfemoral, there were fewer access complications in the transradial group (0 of 11 vs 3 of 44, P = .06) but no differences in fluoroscopy time or contrast volumes (25.3 ± 14.4 vs 29.0 ± 25.1 minutes, P = .47; 83.0 ± 43.7 vs 82.6 ± 35.2 cc, P = .97). At follow-up (median 6 months), radial patency was 100%. Creatinine and systolic blood pressure had decreased (mean 1.4 ± 0.5 to 1.2 ± 0.5, P = .06; 160 ± 25 to 135 ± 17, P = .009). Conclusions: Elective transradial renal intervention is feasible and safe. Radial–renal distance is a limitation with available guides.