Endovascular Treatment of Atherosclerotic Iliac Stenosis: Local and Systemic Complications of the Open Brachial Access

Adverse Events in Open Surgical vs. Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Brachial Access for Endovascular Interventions

Background: Advances in endovascular interventions have made endovascular approaches the first option for treating peripheral arterial diseases. Although radial artery access is commonly used for coronary procedures, the common femoral artery remains the most frequent site for endovascular treatments due to better ergonomics and proven technical success. Meanwhile, data on using upper extremity access via the brachial artery during complex endovascular aortic interventions are lacking. This study aimed to compare the incidence of access site complications between ultrasound-guided percutaneous brachial access (UPA) and open surgical incisional brachial access (OSA) in the management of peripheral arterial diseases. Methods: Patients who underwent treatment for peripheral arterial and aortic disease using brachial access from 2019 to 2023 were included in this study. The primary endpoint was the complication rate at the access site 30 days postoperatively. Access-related complications included bleeding requiring re-exploration, acute upper limb ischemia, thrombosis, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, and nerve injury associated with the brachial access. Results: Brachial access was performed on 485 patients (UPA, n = 320; OSA, n = 165). The mean operation time was 164.5 ± 45.4 min for the percutaneous procedure and 289.2 ± 79.4 min for the cutdown procedure (p = 0.003). Postprocedural hematoma occurred in 15 patients in the UPA group and 2 patients in the OSA group (p = 0.004). Thromboembolic events were observed in 9 patients in the percutaneous group and 3 patients in the OSA group. Reoperation was required for 23 patients in the percutaneous group and 8 patients in the cutdown group. Conclusions: The findings indicate that patients undergoing endovascular arterial interventions have a higher rate of brachial access complications in the UPA group compared to the OSA group.

Advanced Endovascular Treatment of Complex Aortic Pathology

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair have been shown to reduce blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, mortality, and morbidity compared with open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms and thoracic aortic aneurysms. However, there are anatomical constraints that limit the application of the endovascular approach in 30% to 40% of patients, including those with short necks, excessive angulation, or aneurysms with the involvement of aortic side branches such as supra-aortic trunks, arch aneurysms, visceral arteries, or internal iliac arteries.

Perioperative adverse events in percutaneous versus open brachial access

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study was to compare the incidence of complications at the access site after percutaneous brachial access (PBA) and open brachial access (OBA) in the treatment of peripheral arterial disease.

METHODS

From November 2016 to November 2021, all patients who had undergone peripheral artery revascularization with brachial access were included. The primary outcome was the 30-day rate of postoperative complications at the access site. The complications included hematoma, arteriovenous fistula, and pseudoaneurysms that had resulted in prolonged hospitalization and/or reintervention.

RESULTS

Overall, 259 procedures with brachial access had been performed (PBA, n = 101; OBA, n = 158). The baseline clinical and demographic characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. The sheath size was larger for the OBA procedures. Complications had occurred in 11 of 101 patients (11.1%) in the PBA group and 5 of 158 patients (3.2%) in the OBA group (P = .01). The mean duration of the procedure was significantly shorter for the PBA group (73.5 ± 46.5 minutes vs 101.2 ± 60.8 minutes; P = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who had undergone brachial access for peripheral vascular disease, the rate of access site-related complications was significantly lower for the patients who had undergone open access compared with that for the patients who had undergone percutaneous access.

Algorithm of Femoropopliteal Endovascular Treatment

Background and Objectives: Indications for the endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal lesions have steadily increased over the past decade. Accordingly, the number of devices has also increased, but the choice of the best endovascular treatment remains to be defined. Many devices are now available for physicians. However, in order to obtain a high success rate, it is necessary to respect an algorithm whose choice of device is only one step in the treatment. Materials and Methods: The first step is, therefore, to define the approach according to the lesion to be treated. Anterograde approaches (femoral, radial, or humeral) are distinguished from retrograde approaches depending on the patient’s anatomy and surgical history. Secondarily, the lesion will be crossed intraluminally or subintimally using a catheter or an angioplasty balloon. The third step corresponds to the preparation of the artery, which is essential before the implantation of the device. It has a crucial role in reducing the rate of restenosis. Several tools are available and are chosen according to the lesion requiring treatment (stenosis, occlusion). Among them, we find the angioplasty balloon, the atherectomy probes, or intravascular lithotripsy. Finally, the last step corresponds to the choice of the device to be implanted. This is also based on the nature of the lesion, which is considered short, up to 15 cm and complex beyond that. The choice of device will be between bare stents, covered stents, drug-coated balloons, and drug-eluting stents. Currently, drug-eluting stents appear to be the treatment of choice for short lesions, and active devices seem to be the preferred treatment for more complex lesions, although there is a lack of data. Results: In case of failure to cross the lesion, the retrograde approach is a safe and effective alternative. Balloon angioplasty currently remains the reference method for the preparation of the artery, the aim of which is to ensure the intraoperative technical success of the treatment (residual stenosis < 30%), to limit the risk of dissection and, finally, to limit the occurrence of restenosis. Concerning the treatment, the drug-eluting devices seem to present the best results, whether for simple or complex lesions. Conclusions: Endovascular treatment for femoropopliteal lesions needs to be considered upstream of the intervention in order to anticipate the treatment and the choice of devices for each stage.