Safety and Efficacy of Transbrachial Access for Endovascular Procedures: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

Transbrachial Artery as Single or Combined Approach for Complex Interventions in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the transbrachial approach as a single or combined procedure for complex interventions in peripheral artery disease (PAD).

METHODS

Between March 2011 and April 2021, 169 patients with PAD underwent endovascular therapy via the transbrachial approach as a single or dual procedure. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the predictors of adverse events at the brachial puncture site. All demographic, clinical, and perioperative data were acquired from electronic medical records and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Brachial artery access was used alone and in combination in 87 and 82 patients, respectively. Patients in the combined-approach group underwent more intraoperative stent implantations and had more vascular closure devices (VCD). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that hypertension was an independent factor for higher rates of brachial puncture site adverse events (odds ratio, 4.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-16.97; P = 0.016). Brachial artery access-site complications occurred in 26 patients, including 6 (23.1%) major and 20 (76.9%) minor entry-site complications. Entry-site complications were observed in 21 (16.8%) and 5 (11.4%) patients assigned to manual compression and VCD groups, respectively. There were no significant intergroup differences in the incidence of major or minor complications. Interestingly, patients assigned to the VCD group did not experience major entry-site complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The transbrachial approach, as a single or combined procedure, is a safe alternative to complex interventions in patients with PAD. Complications of brachial access progressively decrease with improved blood pressure control.

A comparative study on the transbrachial and transfemoral approaches for the treatment of superior mesenteric artery lesions

BACKGROUND

Superior Mesenteric Artery (SMA) lesions present a significant challenge in endovascular surgery. Both the transbrachial (TBA) and the transfemoral (TFA) approaches have been employed for the treatment of these lesions, but the comparative effectiveness of these methods remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent TBA and TFA at a tertiary center between June 2020 and February 2023. Key parameters including technical success, procedural details, and complication rates were examined.

RESULTS

In a study of 99 patients, 66 underwent Transfemoral Approach (TFA) and 33 underwent Transbrachial Approach (TBA). No significant age or gender differences were noted between groups. TFA procedures were longer (90.0 vs 63.5 min, p = 0.002) and had higher fluoroscopy times (59.0 vs 43.0 min, p = 0.02) and selective SMA times (366.0 vs 245.0 min, p = 0.038) compared to TBA, especially with a smaller aortomesenteric angle (<90°). Technical success rates were high in both groups (TFA 97%, TBA 93.9%, p = 0.60). Complication rates were similar between groups, with no significant predictors for access site complications identified.

CONCLUSION

Both the TBA and the TFA are effective for the treatment of SMA lesions, with TBA potentially offering advantages in terms of efficiency and patient recovery, particularly in cases with certain anatomy. No significant differences in complication rates were found between the two groups. Further research, including prospective randomized trials, is needed to confirm these findings.

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.

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.

Transbrachial Secondary Vascular Access in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Procedures: A Single-Centre Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures require secondary vascular access for inserting accessory catheters and performing percutaneous repair of femoral artery injury. Use of the transbrachial approach for secondary vascular access in TAVR procedures has not been reported.

METHODS

This study identified 48 patients at the current institution who had undergone transfemoral TAVR utilising transbrachial secondary vascular access. Efficacy and safety of this strategy for achieving a successful totally percutaneous procedure were examined. Study endpoints were occurrence of vascular complications and bleeding related to transbrachial access, as well as periprocedural and 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 80±7 years and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 10.6±3.1. Sizes of sheaths inserted into the brachial artery were 6 Fr (85%), 8 Fr (2%), and 9 Fr (13%). Transbrachial access was used for delivering stent grafts to the femoral artery in 13% of the patients, inflation of an occlusive balloon within the iliac artery in 10%, and treatment of iatrogenic femoral artery stenosis in 2%. Successful valve replacement was achieved in all cases. Brachial sheaths were removed by manual compression following administration of protamine sulfate. There were no major access site complications or VARC-3 type ≥2 bleeding related to the brachial vascular access. Brachial artery occlusion occurred in two patients (4%) who underwent surgical vascular repair. Two (2) additional patients developed mild arm ischaemia, which was treated conservatively. Periprocedural mortality was 0% and early mortality was 8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Transbrachial secondary access in TAVR procedures was feasible and enabled percutaneous vascular repair in cases of femoral artery injury.