Feasibility of vascular access closure in arteries other than the common femoral artery using the ExoSeal vascular closure device

Intraoperative angiography via popliteal artery access for spinal neurovascular lesions: an institutional experience and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative DSA is used to confirm complete obliteration of neurovascular pathologies. For spinal neurovascular lesions, femoral access can be challenging given the need to flip the patient after sheath placement. Similarly, radial access can be complicated by arch navigation difficulties. Vascular access via the popliteal artery represents an appealing alternative option; however, data regarding its utility and efficacy in these cases are limited.

METHODS

A retrospective series of four consecutive patients between July 2016 and August 2022 who underwent intraoperative spinal DSA via the popliteal artery was analyzed. Additionally, a systematic review was conducted to collect previously reported such cases. Collective patient demographics and operative details are presented to consolidate the available evidence supporting popliteal access.

RESULTS

Four patients met the inclusion criteria from our institution. The systematic review yielded six previously published studies reporting 16 additional transpopliteal access cases. Of the 20 total cases (mean±SD age 60.8±17.2 years), 60% were men. Most treated lesions were dural arteriovenous fistulas (80%) located in the thoracic spine (55%) or cervical spine (25%). The left popliteal artery was most accessed and the highest visualized level was the craniocervical junction. All outcomes were either stable or improving after surgery, and no complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the safety and feasibility of transpopliteal access for intraoperative DSA in the prone position in four cases in addition to 16 previously reported cases in the literature. Our case series highlights popliteal artery access as an alternative to transfemoral or transradial access in this setting.

The Use of Vascular Closure Devices for Brachial Artery Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To estimate the rates of technical success and adverse events of vascular closure devices (VCDs) in the brachial artery and compare the rates of adverse events with manual compression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for observational studies examining VCDs in the brachial artery. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects for the following outcomes: (a) technical success, (b) hematoma at the access site, (c) pseudoaneurysm, (d) local neurological adverse events, and (e) total number of adverse events. A pairwise meta-analysis compared VCD with manual compression for the outcomes of hematoma and the total number of adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 1,761 eligible records, 16 studies including 510 access sites were included. Primary procedures performed were peripheral arterial disease interventions, percutaneous coronary intervention, and endovascular thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. The technical success rate was 93% (95% CI, 87%-96%; I² = 47%). Data on the following adverse events were obtained via meta-analysis: (a) hematoma, 9% (5%-15%; I² = 54%); (b) stenosis or occlusion at access site, 3% (1%-14%; I² = 51%); (c) infection, 0% (0%-5%; I² = 0%); (d) pseudoaneurysm, 4% (1%-13%; I² = 61%); (e) local neurological adverse events, 5% (2%-13%; I² = 54%); and (f) total number of adverse events, 15% (10%-22%; I² = 51%). Angio-Seal success rate was 96% (93%-98%; I² = 0%), whereas the ExoSeal success rate was 93% (69%-99%; I² = 61%). When comparing VCD and manual compression, there was no difference in hematoma formation (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.35-1.63; I² = 0%; P = .47) or the total number of adverse events (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.35-1.58; I² = 76%; P = .45).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being off-label, studies suggest that VCDs in the brachial artery have a high technical success rate. There was no significant difference in adverse events between VCDs and manual compression in the brachial artery.

Percutaneous Axillary Artery Access for Peripheral and Complex Endovascular Interventions: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Benefits

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the safety, efficacy, and applicability of percutaneous axillary artery (pAxA) access in patients requiring upper extremity large sheath access during complex aortic, cardiac, and peripheral endovascular procedures. We also take this opportunity to address the potential cost-benefits offered by pAxA access compared to open upper extremity access.

METHODS

A total of 26 consecutive patients, between June 2018 and October 2020, underwent endovascular intervention, requiring upper extremity access (UEA). Ultrasound-guided, percutaneous access of the axillary artery was used in all 26 patients with off-label use of pre-close technique with Perclose ProGlide closure devices. Access sites accommodated sheath sizes that ranged from 6 to 14 French (F). End points were technical success and access site-related complications including isolated neuropathies, hematoma, distal embolization, access-site thrombosis, and post-operative bleeding requiring secondary interventions. Technical success was defined as successful arterial closure intraoperatively with no evidence of stenosis, occlusion, or persistent bleeding, requiring additional intervention.

RESULTS

Of the 26 patients requiring pAxA access, 15 underwent complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs (EVAR) with branched, fenestrated, snorkel, or parallel endografts, 6 underwent peripheral vascular interventions, and 5 underwent cardiac interventions. Fifty-three percent accommodated sheath sizes of 12F or higher. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases with no major perioperative access complications requiring additional open or endovascular procedures. In our series, we had one post-operative mortality secondary to myocardial infarction in a patient with significant coronary artery disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data again demonstrated the proposed safety and efficacy attributable to pAxA access, while extending its application to wide spectrum of endovascular interventions which included peripheral or coronary vascular in addition to complex EVAR.

Retrograde Popliteal Access for Challenging Superficial Femoral Artery Occlusion

Retrograde popliteal access has long been established as an alternative to the antegrade approach to occlusive lesions in the superficial femoral artery (SFA). However, early reports with high complication rates (dissection, hematomas, aneurysms, and arteriovenous shunts at the puncture site) reduced enthusiasm for this technique. In recent years, with the development of thinner sheaths and low profile angioplasty devices, retrograde popliteal access has resurfaced as a viable technique, mostly in combination with or after failure of the more classical antegrade approach. In this retrospective study, we will report the safety and efficacy of the retrograde popliteal approach in the treatment of superficial femoral artery chronic total occlusions, in 13 consecutive patients between January 2017 and January 2021. The results showed 100% successful puncture of the popliteal artery and 100% successful recanalization and stenting of the superficial femoral artery with a total of 2 complications related to the puncture site and zero periprocedural mortality. In conclusion, the retrograde popliteal approach appears to be an effective and safe alternative to the common SFA complete total occlusion (CTO) treatment approach.

Success and reliability of extrafemoral Exoseal vascular closure device: “Off-label” usage

Aim

The aim of this study is to present the reliability and efficacy of Exoseal vascular closure device (EVCD) for closure of extrafemoral punctures.

Materials and methods

All patients who were treated with EVCD following arterial endovascular treatment involving an extrafemoral puncture between April 2013 and January 2014 were examined retrospectively. This study included 11 patients (4 women and 7 men between the ages of 48 and 87 years; average age = 65 years). A total of 13 procedures were performed in 11 patients involving the following access routes: brachial artery (n = 5), popliteal artery (n = 4), and polytetrafluoroethylene graft (n = 4).

Results

Twelve out of 13 EVCD procedures achieved technical success and procedural success. One minor and one major complications occurred. Both complications were revealed to be pseudoaneurysms, both in the brachial artery. Pseudoaneurysm of the minor complication was treated by Fibrin Sealant (Tisseel) injection guided by ultrasonography and the other pseudoaneurysm was treated by covered stent placement.

Conclusions

The femoral artery is an essential access route of arterial endovascular procedures; however, in some cases, the extrafemoral arterial route is necessary. In this study, EVCD was found to be useful for closing extrafemoral arterial routes. This study had a limited number of cases and more large-scale studies are needed.

A Retrospective Study Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of EXOSEAL Vascular Closure Device to Manual Compression in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Transbrachial Procedures

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EXOSEAL vascular closure device (EVCD) insertion by comparing its performance with manual compression (MC) in achieving hemostasis at the brachial artery puncture site.

METHODS

A retrospective study of brachial artery access by using either MC or EVCD for achieving hemostasis from March 2016 to October 2017 was conducted. Patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) undergoing percutaneous transbrachial procedures were included. Time to hemostasis (TTH) was the primary efficacy end point. Seven-day incidence of major access site-related complications was the primary safety end point. TTH and major and minor complications associated with treatment of these 2 groups were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients with TBAD undergoing percutaneous transbrachial procedures entered the analysis. Of these, 107 patients underwent EVCD insertion and 50 patients underwent MC. The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. TTH was significantly shorter for EVCD over MC (P < 0.05). The TTH ≥10 min in the MC group was 100.0% (n = 50), but in the EVCD group, it was ≤2 min, 87.9% (n = 107); 2-5 min, 7.5% (n = 107); and ≥10 min, 4.7% (n = 107). The EVCD group had several major complications, while the MC group had none. Two patients (1.9%, n = 107) required vascular repair, one patient (0.6%, n = 107) required blood transfusion, and 1 patient (0.6%, n = 107) developed upper limb numbness and weakness after EVCD deployment. Minor complication such as the occurrence of hematoma (≤5 cm) in the MC group was 4 (8.0%) but was also 4 (3.7%) in the EVCD group, showing statistically significant difference (P = 0.030). The incidence of ecchymosis was 8 (7.5%) in the EVCD group when compared with 13 (26.0%) in the MC group, which showed statistically significant difference (P = 0.001). Other major and minor complications showed no significant differences between these 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

After invasive procedures by 6F percutaneous access via the brachial artery in preprocedurally fully anticoagulated patients, TTH was significantly reduced in patients who underwent EVCD when compared with patients who underwent MC. MC is a safer and more convenient way to achieve hemostasis but has higher incidence of minor complications.

A Stopped Pilot Study of the ProGlide Closure Device After Transbrachial Endovascular Interventions

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the suture-mediated ProGlide device in closure of the brachial artery after endovascular interventions. Materials and Methods: From 2016 to 2017, a pilot study was performed using the ProGlide to achieve hemostasis after percutaneous access of distal brachial arteries >4 mm in diameter. In an interim analysis, the results were compared to a matched control group taken from a 60-patient historical cohort who underwent brachial artery access and manual compression to achieve hemostasis between 2014 and 2017. The primary outcome was access-related reintervention and the secondary outcome was the incidence of access-site complications. Results: Seven patients (mean age 67.9 years; 6 men) were enrolled in the study before it was stopped in 2017. Four patients experienced 6 access-site complications (neuropathy, hematoma, occlusion, and pseudoaneurysm). These resulted in 3 access-related reinterventions: surgical evacuation of a hematoma, thrombectomy of the occluded brachial artery, and surgical repair of the pseudoaneurysm. In the interim comparison to the 19 matched patients (mean age 61.9 years; 6 men), the ProGlide group had proportionally more patients experiencing access-related complications (57% vs 16% for manual compression, p=0.035) and resultant reinterventions (43% vs 11%, p=0.064). Based on this data the trial was stopped. Conclusion: Considering this experience, it is not advisable to use the ProGlide in transbrachial endovascular interventions due to the high incidence of complications and access-related reinterventions.

Access and hemostasis: femoral and popliteal approaches and closure devices-why, what, when, and how?

This article reviews the arterial access sites used in the treatment of peripheral arterial disease, including common femoral, superficial femoral, and popliteal arterial puncture. The optimal approach and techniques for arterial puncture will be described and technical tips and tricks will be discussed. An overview of the currently available vascular closure devices will also be presented. Indications, contraindications, and complications will be discussed. Results of the use of vascular closure devices compared with manual compression will be presented.