Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Kalyan Sajja x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Joshua H. Weinberg, Ahmad Sweid, Kalyan Sajja, M. Reid Gooch, Nabeel Herial, Stavropoula Tjoumakaris, Robert H. Rosenwasser, and Pascal Jabbour

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of CorPath GRX robotic-assisted (RA) transradial (TR) carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with manual TR CAS.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database and identified 13 consecutive patients who underwent TR CAS from June 2019 through February 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups: RA (6 patients) and manual (7 patients).

RESULTS

Among 6 patients in the RA group with a mean age of 70.0 ± 7.2 years, technical success was achieved in all 6 (100%) procedures; there were no technical or access-site complications and no catheter exchanges. Transfemoral conversion was required in 1 (16.7%) case due to a tortuous aortic arch. There were no perioperative complications, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality. The mean procedure duration was significantly longer in the RA group (85.0 ± 14.3 minutes [95% CI 69.9–100.0] vs 61.2 ± 17.5 minutes [95% CI 45.0–77.4], p = 0.0231). There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics, fluoroscopy time, contrast dose, radiation exposure, catheter exchanges, technical success, transfemoral conversion, technical or access-site complications, myocardial infarction, stroke, other complications, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors’ results suggest that RA TR CAS is feasible, safe, and effective. Neurovascular-specific engineering and software modifications are needed prior to complete remote control. Remote control has important implications regarding patient access to lifesaving procedures for conditions such as stroke and aneurysm rupture as well as operative precision. Future clinical investigations among larger cohorts are needed to demonstrate reliable performance and patient benefit.

Restricted access

Omaditya Khanna, Lohit Velagapudi, Somnath Das, Ahmad Sweid, Nikolaos Mouchtouris, Fadi Al Saiegh, Michael B. Avery, Nohra Chalouhi, Richard F. Schmidt, Kalyan Sajja, M. Reid Gooch, Stavropoula Tjoumakaris, Robert H. Rosenwasser, and Pascal M. Jabbour

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the authors aimed to investigate procedural and clinical outcomes between radial and femoral artery access in patients undergoing thrombectomy for acute stroke.

METHODS

The authors conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of 104 patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy, 52 via transradial access and 52 via traditional transfemoral access. They analyzed various procedural and clinical metrics between the two patient cohorts.

RESULTS

There was no difference between patient demographics or presenting symptoms of stroke severity between patients treated via transradial or transfemoral access. The mean procedural time was similar between the two treatment cohorts: 60.35 ± 36.81 minutes for the transradial group versus 65.50 ± 29.92 minutes for the transfemoral group (p = 0.451). The mean total fluoroscopy time for the procedure was similar between the two patient cohorts (20.31 ± 11.68 for radial vs 18.49 ± 11.78 minutes for femoral, p = 0.898). The majority of patients underwent thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score 2b/3 revascularization, regardless of access site (92.3% for radial vs 94.2% for femoral, p = 0.696). There was no significant difference in the incidence of access site or periprocedural complications between the transradial and transfemoral cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute stroke intervention performed via transradial access is feasible and effective, with no significant difference in procedural and clinical outcomes compared with traditional transfemoral access. Larger studies are required to further validate the efficacy and limitations of transradial access for neurointerventional procedures.