Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between patient privacy rights and the need for accurate, timely communication within the healthcare team. The technologist is privy to sensitive information that, if disclosed inappropriately, could lead to significant legal and ethical repercussions. Balancing the patient’s right to confidentiality with the operational requirements of patient care demands careful judgment and adherence to established protocols. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves directly and discreetly informing the supervising physician about the observed post-procedural complication. This approach prioritizes patient safety by ensuring the physician, who is ultimately responsible for the patient’s care, is immediately aware of a potential issue. This aligns with the ethical principle of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and the regulatory requirement for accurate and timely reporting of patient status changes. It respects patient confidentiality by limiting disclosure to the essential medical personnel involved in the patient’s care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Disclosing the complication to the patient’s family without the physician’s explicit instruction or presence is ethically problematic. While well-intentioned, it bypasses the physician’s role in patient management and could lead to misinformation or undue patient anxiety. This action could violate patient privacy regulations if the family is not authorized to receive such information directly. Waiting until the end of the shift to document the complication in the patient’s chart, without immediate verbal notification to the physician, poses a significant risk to patient safety. A delay in reporting a potential complication could impede timely intervention, potentially exacerbating the patient’s condition. This failure to communicate critical information promptly violates the principle of non-maleficence (do no harm) and the professional obligation to ensure continuity of care. Discussing the observed complication with a colleague in a non-clinical setting, such as the break room, is a clear breach of patient confidentiality. This constitutes an unauthorized disclosure of protected health information, violating privacy regulations and professional ethical standards. Such gossip undermines patient trust and can have serious legal consequences. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety and adheres strictly to privacy regulations. When a potential complication is observed, the immediate steps should be: 1) Assess the situation for immediate patient risk. 2) Report the observation directly and discreetly to the responsible physician. 3) Document the observation and the physician’s instructions accurately in the patient’s record. 4) Only discuss patient information with authorized personnel for legitimate clinical purposes.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to image quality and patient care in neuro-interventional radiology. Ensuring accurate diagnostic information is paramount, and deviations from established protocols can lead to misdiagnosis, unnecessary repeat scans, or delayed treatment. The technologist must balance the need for efficient workflow with the absolute requirement for diagnostic quality imaging, adhering to established best practices and institutional guidelines. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic approach to troubleshooting image quality issues. This begins with a thorough review of the acquired images to identify the specific artifacts or deficiencies. The technologist should then consult the established imaging protocol for the specific examination being performed, paying close attention to parameters relevant to T1, T2, FLAIR, and diffusion-weighted imaging sequences. If the issue is related to a known artifact or a common parameter deviation, adjusting the relevant sequence parameters within the approved protocol limits is the most appropriate next step. This approach ensures that the technologist is working within the established safety and efficacy guidelines, maximizing the chances of obtaining diagnostic quality images without compromising patient safety or introducing new artifacts. This aligns with the ethical obligation to provide competent patient care and the professional responsibility to maintain high standards of imaging practice. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately escalating the issue to a senior radiologist without attempting any initial troubleshooting. While collaboration is important, bypassing fundamental diagnostic steps can be inefficient and may indicate a lack of confidence in basic problem-solving skills. This approach fails to leverage the technologist’s training and understanding of imaging physics and protocols, potentially delaying the resolution and overburdening the radiologist with issues that could be addressed at the technologist level. Another incorrect approach is to arbitrarily adjust multiple imaging parameters without a clear understanding of their impact on the specific sequence or artifact. This trial-and-error method is unprofessional and can lead to further image degradation, introduce new artifacts, or even compromise patient safety if parameters are pushed beyond acceptable limits. It demonstrates a lack of systematic problem-solving and a disregard for the established protocols designed to ensure image quality and patient safety. A further incorrect approach is to proceed with the scan and submit images of suboptimal quality, assuming the radiologist can interpret them despite the deficiencies. This is ethically unacceptable as it directly compromises the diagnostic integrity of the examination and can lead to misinterpretation, incorrect diagnoses, and potentially harmful clinical decisions. It violates the technologist’s duty to provide accurate and reliable imaging data. Professional Reasoning: Professionals in neuro-interventional radiology should employ a structured problem-solving framework when encountering image quality issues. This framework includes: 1) Observation and Identification: Clearly define the observed problem (e.g., artifact type, signal loss). 2) Protocol Review: Consult the relevant imaging protocol for the specific examination and sequence. 3) Parameter Assessment: Evaluate the acquisition parameters for potential deviations or areas for optimization. 4) Targeted Adjustments: Make specific, informed adjustments to parameters based on an understanding of their impact. 5) Re-evaluation: Assess the impact of adjustments on image quality. 6) Escalation: If issues persist after troubleshooting, consult with a supervisor or radiologist, providing a clear summary of the problem and the steps already taken. This systematic approach ensures efficient and effective problem resolution while upholding professional standards and patient care.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the critical nature of CT angiography in neuro-interventional procedures. The technologist must balance the need for optimal image quality to guide complex interventions with the imperative to minimize radiation exposure to the patient. This requires a nuanced understanding of CT principles, protocol optimization, and patient-specific factors, all within the framework of established safety guidelines and professional ethics. Failure to achieve adequate image quality can lead to diagnostic errors or suboptimal procedural outcomes, while excessive radiation exposure poses long-term health risks. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic approach to protocol selection and optimization, prioritizing patient safety and diagnostic efficacy. This begins with a thorough review of the patient’s clinical indication and relevant anatomical region. The technologist should then consult the established institutional CT angiography protocols, selecting the most appropriate one based on the clinical need. Crucially, this involves understanding the interplay between kVp, mAs, pitch, slice thickness, and contrast media administration to achieve the desired spatial resolution and contrast enhancement while adhering to ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principles for radiation dose reduction. This approach is ethically mandated by the professional duty of care and aligns with regulatory guidance emphasizing radiation safety and diagnostic accuracy. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to default to the highest possible image acquisition parameters (e.g., highest mAs, lowest pitch) without considering the specific clinical requirements or patient factors. This directly violates the ALARA principle by unnecessarily increasing radiation dose without a corresponding increase in diagnostic benefit, potentially leading to deterministic effects or increasing stochastic risks. Another incorrect approach is to solely focus on minimizing radiation dose by using significantly reduced parameters without ensuring adequate contrast enhancement and spatial resolution. This compromises the diagnostic quality of the images, which could lead to misinterpretation, delayed diagnosis, or the need for repeat scans, ultimately increasing the patient’s overall radiation burden and potentially impacting procedural success. A third incorrect approach is to deviate from established institutional protocols without proper justification or consultation with a radiologist. This can lead to inconsistent image quality, unpredictable radiation doses, and potential medicolegal implications, as it bypasses the established quality assurance and safety measures embedded within the approved protocols. Professional Reasoning: Professionals in neuro-interventional radiology should employ a decision-making framework that integrates clinical knowledge, technical expertise, and ethical considerations. This involves: 1) understanding the clinical question and its implications for imaging requirements; 2) knowing the capabilities and limitations of the imaging equipment and available protocols; 3) applying the ALARA principle rigorously in all imaging decisions; 4) collaborating with the interpreting physician (radiologist) and the interventional team to ensure optimal imaging for the specific procedure; and 5) maintaining continuous professional development to stay abreast of evolving technologies and best practices in radiation safety and image optimization.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the technologist to interpret subtle physiological changes during a neuro-interventional procedure and correlate them with the underlying autonomic nervous system (ANS) response. The patient’s condition, the procedural manipulations, and the potential for adverse events necessitate a keen understanding of how sympathetic and parasympathetic stimulation can manifest and impact vital signs. Accurate assessment and appropriate response are critical for patient safety and optimal procedural outcomes. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves recognizing that the observed bradycardia and hypotension are classic signs of parasympathetic overstimulation, often triggered by vagal nerve stimulation during manipulation in the carotid sinus region or other sensitive areas. The technologist should immediately and clearly communicate these findings to the interventionalist, highlighting the potential ANS involvement. This immediate, precise communication allows the interventionalist to assess the situation, consider reducing stimulation, and administer appropriate interventions (e.g., atropine if indicated) to counteract the parasympathetic effect and restore hemodynamic stability. This aligns with professional standards of care that mandate vigilant patient monitoring, accurate reporting of critical findings, and collaborative decision-making with the physician. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to attribute the changes solely to anesthesia depth without further investigation or communication. While anesthesia can influence hemodynamics, ignoring specific signs of ANS dysregulation can delay critical interventions. This fails to meet the professional obligation to identify and report significant physiological changes, potentially leading to patient harm. Another incorrect approach is to wait for the interventionalist to notice the changes independently. This passive stance neglects the technologist’s primary role in continuous patient monitoring and proactive reporting. Professional responsibility dictates that the technologist actively alerts the physician to any significant deviation from the patient’s baseline or expected physiological response. A further incorrect approach is to administer medications without explicit physician orders. While the technologist may suspect a specific cause, independent medication administration is outside the scope of practice for an N-IR technologist and constitutes a serious ethical and regulatory violation, potentially leading to adverse drug events and compromising patient safety. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic approach to patient monitoring. This involves: 1) Continuous observation of vital signs and physiological parameters. 2) Interpretation of observed changes in the context of the patient’s condition and the ongoing procedure. 3) Correlation of findings with known physiological responses, including those mediated by the autonomic nervous system. 4) Immediate and clear communication of critical findings to the responsible physician. 5) Collaboration with the physician to determine and implement appropriate management strategies.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the technologist to balance immediate patient needs with the established protocols for contrast administration, particularly when dealing with a potentially critical neurological event. The technologist must make a rapid, informed decision that prioritizes patient safety and diagnostic accuracy while adhering to established guidelines and physician orders. The inherent risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) or allergic reactions, even in a non-renal context, necessitates careful consideration of the contrast agent and its administration. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves confirming the physician’s order for the specific contrast agent and dose, and then proceeding with administration as ordered, while simultaneously initiating the necessary documentation and patient monitoring. This approach is correct because it directly follows the physician’s directive, which is paramount in medical imaging. It also ensures that the technologist is prepared to manage any potential adverse reactions by having the necessary information and monitoring in place. This aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm) by ensuring appropriate care and preparedness. Regulatory frameworks, such as those governing radiologic technologists’ scope of practice, emphasize adherence to physician orders and established protocols. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with a different contrast agent or dose than ordered, without explicit physician re-authorization, is a significant ethical and regulatory failure. This constitutes practicing outside the scope of the technologist’s authority and could lead to adverse patient outcomes due to unforeseen interactions or contraindications of the substituted agent. Administering the contrast without confirming the order or initiating documentation bypasses critical safety checks and violates principles of accurate record-keeping, which are essential for patient care continuity and legal compliance. Delaying administration until all potential risks are exhaustively researched, while seemingly cautious, could jeopardize the diagnostic window for a critical CNS event, potentially harming the patient by delaying necessary treatment or diagnosis. This fails the principle of timely intervention when indicated. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety, adherence to physician orders, and established protocols. This involves a rapid assessment of the situation, clear communication with the ordering physician if any ambiguity exists, and meticulous documentation. When faced with a critical situation, the technologist must act decisively within their scope of practice, ensuring all necessary safety measures and monitoring are in place. The framework should include: 1. Verify the order: Confirm the specific contrast agent, dose, and route of administration. 2. Assess patient status: Briefly evaluate for any immediate contraindications or allergies. 3. Communicate if necessary: If any concerns arise, immediately consult the ordering physician. 4. Administer and monitor: Proceed with administration as ordered and initiate appropriate patient monitoring. 5. Document thoroughly: Record all actions, observations, and patient responses.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the critical nature of neuro-interventional procedures and the potential for rapid neurological deterioration. The technologist must balance the need for precise imaging with the patient’s physiological status and the procedural requirements. Misinterpreting or failing to adequately assess the patient’s neurological state can lead to delayed or inappropriate interventions, potentially impacting patient outcomes. The rapid pace of such procedures demands quick, accurate, and ethically sound decision-making. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves prioritizing the immediate assessment of the patient’s neurological status and communicating any observed changes to the interventionalist. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the most critical factor influencing the procedure’s success and patient safety: the patient’s brain function. Promptly identifying and reporting signs of neurological compromise, such as altered consciousness, focal deficits, or changes in pupillary response, allows the interventionalist to make timely adjustments to the procedure, potentially averting serious complications. This aligns with the ethical principle of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and the professional responsibility to maintain patient safety, which is implicitly governed by standards of care and best practices within diagnostic imaging and interventional radiology. While specific regulations for technologist decision-making in this exact context might not be explicitly codified in a single document, the overarching principles of patient care, professional conduct, and the duty of care are universally applied. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Continuing the imaging sequence without thoroughly assessing the patient’s neurological status, despite observing subtle changes, is professionally unacceptable. This approach fails to uphold the duty of care by potentially overlooking critical indicators of patient distress or deterioration. It prioritizes procedural momentum over patient well-being, which is a direct ethical failure. Focusing solely on achieving the technical imaging objectives without considering the patient’s neurological response is also professionally unacceptable. This demonstrates a lack of holistic patient assessment and a failure to integrate vital clinical information into the imaging process. It neglects the interconnectedness of imaging findings and the patient’s physiological state, which is crucial in neuro-interventional radiology. Delaying communication of observed neurological changes until the end of the imaging sequence is a significant ethical and professional failure. This delay can have severe consequences, as critical interventions may be postponed, leading to irreversible neurological damage. It violates the principle of timely intervention and patient advocacy. Professional Reasoning: Professionals in neuro-interventional radiology should employ a decision-making framework that integrates real-time patient assessment with procedural goals. This framework involves: 1. Continuous patient monitoring: Actively observing the patient’s neurological status throughout the procedure. 2. Critical observation and interpretation: Recognizing subtle and overt changes in neurological function. 3. Timely and clear communication: Immediately reporting any significant findings to the interventionalist. 4. Collaborative decision-making: Working with the interventionalist to adjust the procedure based on the patient’s condition. 5. Adherence to protocols and ethical guidelines: Ensuring all actions are within the scope of practice and uphold patient safety and well-being.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the technologist to integrate knowledge of spinal cord anatomy and pathways with the practical demands of a neuro-interventional procedure. Misinterpreting anatomical landmarks or pathways can lead to incorrect catheter placement, suboptimal contrast injection, or even patient injury. The technologist must make rapid, informed decisions based on their understanding of the delicate neural structures involved, ensuring patient safety and procedural efficacy. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves meticulously correlating the fluoroscopic images with the known anatomical pathways of the spinal cord. This means identifying key landmarks such as vertebral bodies, pedicles, and the dura mater, and then tracing the expected course of the anterior and posterior spinal arteries, as well as the relevant venous drainage. Understanding the sensory and motor pathways helps anticipate how stimulation or occlusion might manifest, guiding the technologist in positioning the catheter for optimal visualization or intervention. This approach is correct because it directly applies foundational anatomical knowledge to the real-time procedural context, prioritizing patient safety and diagnostic accuracy in accordance with the principles of responsible medical imaging and patient care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to rely solely on the visual appearance of vessels without a deep understanding of their anatomical context and functional pathways. This could lead to misidentification of critical arteries or veins, potentially resulting in inadvertent injection into a non-target vessel or failure to adequately visualize the intended pathology. This fails to meet the standard of care expected of a neuro-interventional technologist who must possess detailed anatomical knowledge. Another incorrect approach is to assume that standard catheter positions are universally applicable without considering individual patient anatomy and the specific pathology being addressed. While protocols exist, rigid adherence without anatomical correlation can be detrimental. This approach neglects the dynamic nature of anatomy and the need for adaptive technique, potentially compromising the procedure’s success and patient outcomes. A further incorrect approach is to prioritize speed of image acquisition over anatomical accuracy. In neuro-interventional radiology, precision is paramount. Rushing the process without careful anatomical assessment increases the risk of errors in catheter placement, contrast delivery, and ultimately, diagnostic or therapeutic effectiveness. This approach disregards the fundamental requirement for meticulous technique in interventional procedures. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making framework that begins with a thorough review of the patient’s imaging and clinical history. During the procedure, continuous correlation of fluoroscopic findings with established spinal cord anatomy and pathway knowledge is essential. This involves actively identifying anatomical landmarks, anticipating the course of neural structures, and understanding the potential implications of catheter manipulation. When in doubt, seeking clarification from the supervising physician is a critical step in ensuring patient safety and optimal procedural outcomes.

The assessment process reveals a scenario that is professionally challenging due to the critical nature of neuro-interventional procedures and the potential for rapid deterioration of a patient’s neurological status. Accurate identification and management of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dynamics are paramount for patient safety and procedural success. Misinterpreting or failing to adequately assess CSF characteristics can lead to incorrect procedural planning, suboptimal treatment, and potentially serious complications such as infection, hydrocephalus, or neurological deficits. Careful judgment is required to integrate imaging findings with clinical presentation and procedural goals. The best professional practice involves a comprehensive approach that meticulously documents the visual characteristics of the CSF obtained during the procedure. This includes noting its color, clarity, and the presence of any particulate matter or blood. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the need for objective, observable data that informs subsequent diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Regulatory guidelines for medical imaging and interventional procedures emphasize accurate documentation of findings and adherence to established protocols for sample collection and analysis, even if visual assessment is the primary method in this context. Ethically, this thoroughness ensures that the patient receives the most appropriate care based on direct observation, minimizing the risk of misdiagnosis or inappropriate intervention. An incorrect approach would be to solely rely on the patient’s reported symptoms without visually confirming the CSF characteristics. This is professionally unacceptable because subjective reports, while important, can be influenced by various factors and may not accurately reflect the underlying pathology. Regulatory frameworks mandate objective assessment and documentation of findings, not just subjective patient input. Another incorrect approach is to assume the CSF is normal without any visual inspection, especially if there are any indications of abnormality or if the procedure involves manipulation near the CSF space. This failure to perform a basic, observable assessment is a breach of standard practice and can lead to overlooking critical diagnostic clues. Finally, an approach that prioritizes speed over thoroughness, leading to a cursory or incomplete visual assessment of the CSF, is also professionally unacceptable. This demonstrates a lack of diligence and a disregard for the potential implications of CSF abnormalities, violating ethical obligations to provide careful and competent patient care. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety and adherence to established protocols. This involves: 1) understanding the procedural context and potential CSF involvement, 2) performing a direct, objective assessment of all observable parameters (in this case, CSF characteristics), 3) correlating these findings with the patient’s clinical presentation and procedural objectives, and 4) documenting all findings meticulously to ensure continuity of care and accountability.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent risks associated with peripheral nerve blocks, particularly the potential for nerve injury, hematoma formation, and local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST). The technologist must balance the need for accurate imaging guidance with patient safety and the ethical imperative to obtain informed consent. The complexity arises from the need to interpret subtle anatomical variations, anticipate potential complications, and communicate effectively with the physician performing the procedure, all while adhering to established protocols and patient rights. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough pre-procedure assessment that includes confirming the correct patient, procedure, and site, and verifying that informed consent has been obtained and documented. This approach prioritizes patient safety and autonomy by ensuring the patient understands the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the procedure and has voluntarily agreed to undergo it. This aligns with fundamental ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for autonomy, as well as regulatory requirements for patient care and documentation. The technologist’s role in this phase is to be a vigilant advocate for the patient, ensuring all prerequisites for a safe and ethical procedure are met before commencing imaging. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to proceed with imaging without confirming informed consent, assuming it has been handled by the physician. This is ethically unacceptable as it bypasses a crucial step in patient autonomy and can lead to legal repercussions if the patient later claims they were not adequately informed or did not consent. It also violates regulatory guidelines that mandate informed consent for medical procedures. Another unacceptable approach is to focus solely on obtaining optimal imaging without actively participating in the pre-procedure safety checks or communicating any concerns about patient positioning or anatomical landmarks to the physician. This demonstrates a lack of professional responsibility and can increase the risk of procedural errors or complications. It fails to uphold the technologist’s duty of care and can be seen as a breach of professional conduct. A further incorrect approach would be to proceed with imaging based on a verbal indication of consent without ensuring it is properly documented. While verbal consent can be valid in some emergency situations, for elective procedures like peripheral nerve blocks, documented consent is the standard and provides a clear record of the patient’s agreement and understanding. Failure to document consent can lead to disputes and legal challenges. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive understanding of the procedure and its associated risks. This framework should include a mandatory pre-procedure checklist that encompasses patient identification, procedure verification, site confirmation, and the critical step of ensuring informed consent is obtained and documented. Open communication with the performing physician and a commitment to patient advocacy are paramount. When in doubt about any aspect of the procedure or patient preparation, the professional should not hesitate to seek clarification or halt the process until all safety and ethical requirements are met.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common yet critical challenge in neuro-interventional radiology: managing a patient requiring urgent intravenous access for contrast administration during a neuro-interventional procedure, where the standard peripheral venous access is compromised. The technologist must balance the immediate need for contrast with patient safety, procedural efficiency, and adherence to established protocols. The professional challenge lies in selecting the most appropriate and safest method for venous access under pressure, considering potential complications and the specific needs of the neuro-interventional suite. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves utilizing a central venous catheter (CVC) placed via a sterile Seldinger technique, ideally in the internal jugular or subclavian vein, for contrast administration. This approach is correct because it provides a large-bore, stable access point necessary for rapid contrast injection, which is crucial for neuro-interventional imaging. The Seldinger technique, when performed by appropriately trained personnel using sterile precautions, minimizes the risk of infection and vascular complications compared to less controlled methods. Adherence to institutional protocols for CVC insertion and management, including proper site preparation, sterile technique, and post-procedure care, is paramount and aligns with best practices in patient safety and infection control, as mandated by general healthcare regulations and professional guidelines for invasive procedures. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Attempting to cannulate a peripheral vein in the antecubital fossa with a smaller gauge catheter for rapid contrast injection is professionally unacceptable. This approach carries a high risk of extravasation due to the rapid flow rate and pressure required for contrast delivery, potentially leading to tissue damage and patient harm. Furthermore, the smaller lumen may not adequately accommodate the required contrast volume and flow rate, compromising image quality and delaying the procedure. Using a central venous catheter without adhering to sterile Seldinger technique, such as by attempting blind insertion or inadequate site preparation, introduces significant risks of infection (e.g., catheter-related bloodstream infection) and mechanical complications like pneumothorax or arterial puncture, violating fundamental principles of patient safety and infection control. Employing a peripheral intravenous catheter that is not designed for high-pressure injection, even if it appears to be of adequate size, can lead to catheter rupture or dislodgement under the stress of contrast injection, posing a risk to the patient and disrupting the procedure. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety and procedural efficacy. This involves first assessing the patient’s condition and the procedural requirements (e.g., need for rapid contrast). Next, evaluate available access options, considering the risks and benefits of each. If standard peripheral access is compromised, the framework dictates considering more advanced, albeit higher-risk, techniques only when performed by qualified personnel with appropriate sterile protocols. In this context, a CVC via Seldinger technique is the established, safest, and most effective solution for high-volume, high-pressure contrast delivery in neuro-interventional procedures when peripheral access is inadequate. Always consult and adhere to institutional policies and the scope of practice for technologists.