A systematic review of outcomes of upper extremity access for fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair

Medium-term outcomes of EXTra-design engineering inner-branch ENdografts for the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms from a multicenter collaboration

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to present the medium-term outcomes of Extra-Design engineering endografts with inner branches (EDE-iBEVARs, Artivion) in endovascular aortic repairs of complex aneurysms building upon promising early results.

METHODS

A retrospective, international, multi-center study was conducted including consecutive patients who underwent complex endovascular aortic repairs using EDE-iBEVARs between 2018 and 2022. Patient demographics, aneurysm anatomical features, procedural details, reinterventions, complications, and endograft failures during follow-up were assessed. The primary outcome was aneurysm-related mortality. Secondary outcome measures included the freedom from all-cause mortality and reintervention, technical and clinical success, and late related complications including branch instability, endoleaks, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Our study encompassed a total of 260 patients across 13 European centers. The cohort included patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (n = 116), suprarenal or juxta-renal aneurysms (n = 95), and those who had previous open repair or previous endovascular aortic repair with type 1A endoleak (n = 49). Of 982 possible inner branches (937 antegrade and 45 retrograde), 962 (98%) were successfully cannulated and bridged with covered stents during the index procedure. Overall, the endograft was successfully deployed in 98% of patients, and 93% were discharged from hospital following surgery. At 3 years, freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 97%, whereas the freedom of all-cause mortality was 89%. Freedom from reinterventions was 91% and 76% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. The rate of late complications such as endoleaks or branch instability events was 12% (n = 30). The late branch occlusion rate during follow-up was 1.5% (n = 15), of which 12 were renal branches.

CONCLUSIONS

EDE-iBEVARs demonstrate satisfactory medium-term outcomes with reintervention rates comparable to other endografts. Encouragingly, rates of branch patency were high, and major adverse events were low. This technology could expand the treatment options for patients with challenging complex aortic conditions.

Complications and Technical Success on Upper Limb Vascular Access for Endovascular Repair of Complex Abdominal and Thoraco-abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Catheterization of target vessels (TV) represented by renal visceral vessels are the crucial aspect during fenestrated and branched endovascular repair. This study aims to assess the efficacy and complications associated with upper limb catheterization during complex aneurysm endovascular surgery repair.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted after Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, involving a search across PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science. Primary endpoint was represented by 30-day stroke. Secondary endpoints were target vessels' (TVs) technical success, 30-day mortality, and local access-related complications. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Sixteen observational studies encompassing 4,137 patients were included. The 30-day stroke incidence for upper limb access was 1.4% (95% CI 1.0-1.8%), which was slightly higher than lower limb, despite not statistically significant. Mortality varied between 0 and 6.8%, and local access-related complications occurred in 3.2% (95% CI 1.9-4.4%). Technical success in TV catheterization was 99.2% (95% CI 98.4-100.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate the safety and efficacy of upper limb access for Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair (f/b-EVAR), with low stroke risk, mortality rates, and minimal local complications. Despite the risk of bias, the findings suggest that upper limb access may be beneficial, especially in bailout situations when femoral access fails, offering valuable insights for clinical decision-making.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Right and Left Upper Extremity Access in Endovascular Aortic Repair for Patients with Thoracoabdominal and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Traditionally, left-sided upper extremity (LUE) access has been preferred in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) to manage aortic aneurysms and decrease the risk of cerebrovascular adverse events. Recently, right-sided upper extremity access (RUE) has gained popularity owing to its greater maneuverability and ergonomics. However, synthesized data comparing the safety and efficacy of RUE and LUE accesses are limited. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on various databases from inception to September 2023 to retrieve all studies that compared RUE and LUE access in EVAR. Data on stroke, 30-day mortality, technical success, access-site complications, total time required for fluoroscopy, and contrast agent requirement were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Forest plots were generated using a random-effects model on review manager by pooling the risk ratios (RRs) and standard mean differences (SMDs). Ten observational studies with a total of 3994 patients were included in our analysis with 1186 patients in the RUE and 2808 patients in the LUE access groups. EVAR using RUE access was associated with a significantly lower amount of contrast agent requirement than the LUE access group [SMD, -0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.45 to -0.02; P = 0.03]. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of the risk of stroke (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.81-3.22; P = 0.17), 30-day mortality (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.50-4.06; P = 0.51), rate of technical success (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-1.01; P = 0.18), risk of access-site complications (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.72-1.39; P = 0.99), and total time required for fluoroscopy (SMD, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.39 to 0.26; P = 0.69). The use of RUE access in EVAR appears to be comparable to LUE access in terms of the risk of stroke, access-related complications, all-cause mortality, technical success rate, and fluoroscopy duration. The RUE group required a lower volume of contrast agent.

Comparison between the outcomes of transfemoral access and transfemoral access with adjunct upper extremity access in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair: A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis

Endovascular aortic repair is an emerging novel intervention for the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms. It is crucial to compare the effectiveness of different access sites, such as transfemoral access (TFA) and upper extremity access (UEA). An electronic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases. The primary endpoint was the incidence of stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), while the secondary endpoints included technical success, access-site complications, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), spinal cord ischemia, among others. Forest plots were constructed for the pooled analysis of data using the random-effects model in Review Manager, version 5.4. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Our findings in 9403 study participants (6228 in the TFA group and 3175 in the UEA group) indicate that TFA is associated with a lower risk of stroke/TIA [RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.40-0.75; p = 0.0002], MI [RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.38-0.69; p < 0.0001], spinal cord ischemia [RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.32-0.53, p < 0.00001], and shortens fluoroscopy time [SMD: -0.62; 95% CI: -1.00 to -0.24; p = 0.001]. Moreover, TFA required less contrast agent [SMD: -0.33; 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.06; p = 0.02], contributing to its appeal. However, no significant differences emerged in technical success [p = 0.23], 30-day mortality [p = 0.48], ICU stay duration [p = 0.09], or overall hospital stay length [p = 0.22]. Patients with TFA had a lower risk of stroke, MI, and spinal cord ischemia, shorter fluoroscopy time, and lower use of contrast agents. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm and strengthen these findings.

Safety and learning curve of percutaneous axillary artery access for complex endovascular aortic procedures

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous axillary artery access is increasingly used for large-bore access during interventional vascular and cardiac procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and learning curve of percutaneous axillary artery access in patients undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair (fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair [FBEVAR]) requiring large-bore upper extremity access and to discuss best practices for technique and complication management.

METHODS

One-hundred forty-six patients undergoing large-bore percutaneous axillary artery access during FBEVAR in a prospective, nonrandomized, Investigational Device Exemption study between September 2017 and January 2023 were analyzed. Ultrasound guidance and micropuncture were used to access the second portion of the axillary artery and 2 Perclose Proglide or Prostyle devices (Abbott Vascular) were predeployed before the insertion of the large-bore sheath. Completion angiography was performed in all patients to verify hemostatic closure. Axillary artery patency was also assessed on follow-up computed tomography angiography. Patient-related, procedural, and postoperative variables were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

One-hundred forty-five patients underwent successful percutaneous axillary artery access; 1 patient failed axillary access and alternative access was established. The left axillary artery was accessed in 115 patients (79%), and the right axillary artery was accessed in 30 patients (21%). The largest profile sheath was 14 F in 4 patients (2.8%), 12F in 133 patients (91.7%), and 8F in 8 patients (5.5%). Ten patients (6.9%) required covered stent placement (Viabahn, W. L. Gore & Associates) for failure to achieve hemostasis; there were no conversions to open surgical repair. Additional adverse events included transient upper extremity weakness in two patients (1.3%) and transient upper extremity paresthesias in two patients (1.3%). Three patients (2%) suffered postoperative strokes, including one unrelated hemorrhagic stroke and two possibly access-related embolic strokes. On follow-up, axillary artery patency was 100%. There was a trend toward decreased closure failure over time, with seven patients (10%) in the early cohort and three (4%) in the late cohort. There was a significant negative correlation between the cumulative complication rate and the cumulative experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Large-bore percutaneous axillary artery access provides safe upper extremity large-bore access during FBEVAR, achieving successful closure in >90% of patients with a low incidence of access-related complications. There was a trend toward better closure rates with increasing experience, suggesting a learning curve effect. Application of best practices including ultrasound guidance and angiography may ensure safe application of the technique of percutaneous large-bore axillary artery access.

A Systematic Review of Endovascular Repair Outcomes in Atherosclerotic Chronic Mesenteric Ischaemia

OBJECTIVE

Chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CMI) treatment focuses on symptom relief and prevention of disease progression. Endovascular repair represents the main treatment modality, while data on the associated antiplatelet regimen are scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the early and midterm outcomes of endovascular repair in patients with CMI.

DATA SOURCES

Randomised controlled trials and observational studies (1990 - 2022) reporting on early and midterm endovascular repair outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic CMI.

REVIEW METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines and PICO model were followed. The protocol was registered to PROSPERO (CRD42023401685). Medline, Embase (via Ovid), and Cochrane databases were searched (end date 21 February 2023). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for risk of bias assessment, and GRADE for evidence quality assessment. Primary outcomes were technical success, 30 day mortality, and symptom relief, assessed using prevalence meta-analysis. The role of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was investigated using meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen retrospective studies (1 224 patients; mean age 69.8 ± 10.6 years; 60.3% female) reporting on 1 368 target vessels (57.8% superior mesenteric arteries) were included. Technical success was 95.0% (95% CI 93 - 97%, p = .28, I2 19%, low certainty), the 30 day mortality rate was 2.0% (95% CI 2 - 4%, p = .93, I2 36%, low certainty), and immediate symptom relief was 87.0% (95% CI 80 - 92%, p < .010, I2 85%, very low certainty). At mean follow up of 28 months, the mortality rate was 15.0% (95% CI 9 - 25%, p = .010, I2 86%, very low certainty), symptom recurrence 25.0% (95% CI 21 - 31%, p < .010, I2 68%, very low certainty) and re-intervention rate 26.0% (95% CI 17 - 37%, p < .010, I2 92%, very low certainty). Single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) and DAPT performed similarly in the investigated outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular repair for CMI appears to be safe as first line treatment, with a low peri-operative mortality rate and acceptable immediate symptom relief. During midterm follow up, symptom recurrence and need for re-intervention are not uncommon. SAPT appears to be equal to DAPT in post-operative outcomes.

Upper Extremity Access Has Worse Outcomes in F/BEVAR Using the VQI Dataset

BACKGROUND

Physician-modified endografts and custom-manufactured devices use branched and fenestrated techniques (F/BEVAR) to repair complex aneurysms. Traditionally, many of these are deployed through a combination of upper and lower extremity access. However, with newer steerable sheaths, you can now simulate upper extremity (UEM) access from a transfemoral approach. Single-institution studies have demonstrated increased risks of access site complications and stroke when UEM access is used. This study compares outcomes after F/BEVAR in a national database between total transfemoral (TTF) access and mixed UEM access.

METHODS

This study is an analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative for all patients who underwent F/BEVAR from 2014 to 2021. Patients were stratified based on a TTF delivery of all devices versus any UEM access for deployment of target vessel stents. Primary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and perioperative death. Secondary outcomes included access site hematoma, occlusion or embolization, operative time, fluoroscopy time, and technical success. Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Three thousand one hundred forty six patients underwent an F/BEVAR: 2,309 (73.4%) TTF and 837 (26.6%) UEM. Logistic regression analysis indicated a two-fold increased risk of death and MI and a three-fold increased risk of stroke in the UEM group. Furthermore, there is decreased operative time (221 vs. 297 min, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (62 vs. 80 min, P < 0.001) in the TTF group and no difference in technical success between groups (96% vs. 97%, P = 0.159). Finally, there was a decrease in access site hematoma 2.54% vs. 4.31% (P = 0.013), access site occlusion 0.61% vs. 1.91% (P = 0.001), and extremity embolization 2.17% vs. 3.58% (P = 0.026) in the TTF versus UEM group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study using Vascular Quality Initiative data demonstrates that patients who undergo an F/BEVAR using UEM access have an increased risk of perioperative MI, death, and stroke compared to TTF access.

Transfemoral Access to Implant Iliac Branch Devices After Previous Aortic Grafts

OBJECTIVE

To report on the outcomes of patients undergoing an iliac branch device implantation after previous open or endovascular aorto-biliac repair, using exclusively femoral access for catheterization and delivery of the covering stent to the hypogastric artery.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective study in which all patients in whom an iliac branch device was implanted after previous open or endovascular aorto-biliac repair were identified. Patients in whom the hypogastric artery catheterization and delivery of the bridging cover stent were achieved via exclusive femoral access were included. Different techniques were used based on surgeon preference. Technical success and access-related complications, as well as iliac branch device endoleak or occlusions during follow-up, were evaluated.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2021, 28 patients with a prior open or endovascular aorto-biliac repair underwent 34 iliac branch device implantations. Most (71%) had juxtarenal or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms, 82% had common iliac artery aneurysms, and 25% had hypogastric artery aneurysms. Bilateral iliac branch device implantations were performed in 21% of the patients, and in 26% of cases, landing in the superior gluteal artery was obtained. An "up-and-over" technique from the contralateral groin was used in 65% of the cases, and a steerable sheath in 35%. Technical success was 94%, with no complications related to access or technique to catheterize and deliver the stents in the hypogastric artery. The cohort had 20% of major complications, with 3 perioperative deaths. Kaplan-Meier estimated an iliac branch device freedom from occlusion and endoleak was 92% and 83% at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation of an iliac branch device over previous aortic or open endografts involving the aortic bifurcation is feasible and safe. We suggest using a femoral approach as the primary access of choice.

CLINICAL IMPACT

In this study we present 28 patients with previous aortoiliac grafts in which iliac branch devices were performed as a subsequent step.We demonstrated the feasibility of the technique despite the difficulty of crossing a neobifurcation, with a steep angle, without complications associated with the technique. Based on our experience, we recommend transfemoral access as the first option for bypassing the hypogastric artery stent, preserving upper extremity access and its possible complications.

Early Outcomes on Triple-Branch Arch Device With Retrograde Left Common Carotid Branch: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular aortic arch repair using multibranch devices has been applied in patients considered at high risk for open repair. The aim of this case series was to report the early outcomes in patients managed with a new design 3 branch arch custom-made device, including a retrograde left common carotid artery (LCCA) branch.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Of CaSe Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines were followed. All consecutive patients undergoing endovascular repair of an aortic arch lesion with a custom-made triple-branch device, including a retrograde LCCA branch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), between October 27, 2022, and February 28, 2023, were included. The presence of an arch aneurysm (degenerative or post-dissection) with diameter ≥55 mm and high risk for a conventional open repair set the indication for treatment. The primary outcomes were technical success and mortality at 30 days. Early morbidity and reinterventions were considered as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Eight elective patients (87.5% men, mean age 72.3±27.0 years) were included. Five of them (62.5%) had undergone a previous ascending aorta repair of an acute type A aortic dissection. All patients were asymptomatic, except one, with left recurrent laryngeal nerve compression. The mean maximum aortic diameter was 70.4±21.0 mm. Percutaneous femoral and axillary access was used in all cases except three in which a cut down for right carotid access was performed. Technical success was 100%. Femoral access to the LCCA and implantation of the bridging stent was performed without technical challenges. No death nor cerebrovascular event was recorded during the 30 day follow-up. Five patients (62.5%) presented major complications, 3 related to access needing reintervention and the remaining related to congestive heart failure (CHF), which were managed successfully with medical treatment. Follow-up (range 1-4 month) was uneventful, except for one patient who presented a secondary type Ia endoleak.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our early experience, the presence of a retrograde branch facilitated the revascularization of the LCCA through femoral access, decreasing the risk of cerebrovascular morbidity. Further analyses with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the device.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Data arising mainly from the retrograde branch for the revascularization of the LSA are encouraging from a variety of devices. The premiminary experience with a triple-branched arch device, with a retrograde branche for the LSA but also for the LCCA, was associated with no 30 day mortality and 100% technical success.The device's design allowed swift catheterization and completion of the LCCA revascularization using femoral access exclusively.

Total Transfemoral Branched Endovascular Thoracoabdominal Aortic Repair (TORCH2): Short-term and 1-Year Outcomes From a National Multicenter Registry

OBJECTIVE

The use of steerable sheaths to allow total transfemoral access (TFA) of branched endovascular repair (BEVAR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms has been proposed as an alternative to upper extremity access (UEA); however, multicenter results from high-volume aortic centers are lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Total Transfemoral Branched Endovascular Thoracoabdominal Aortic Repair (TORCH2) study is a physician-initiated, national, multicenter, retrospective, observational registry (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04930172) of patients undergoing BEVAR with a TFA for the cannulation of reno-visceral target vessels (TV). The study endpoints, classified according to Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards, were (1) technical success; (2) 30-day peri-operative major adverse events; (3) 30-day and midterm clinical success; (4) 30-day and midterm branch instability and TV-related adverse events (reinterventions, type I/III endoleaks).

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients (42 males; median age: 72 years) were treated through a TFA. All the centers included their entire experience with TFA: 18 (26%) used a homemade steerable sheath, and in 28 cases (41%), a stabilizing guidewire was employed. Steerable technical success was achieved in 66 patients (97%) with an overall in-hospital mortality of 6 patients (9%, 3 elective cases [3/58, 5%] and 3 urgent/emergent cases [3/12, 25%]) and major adverse event rate of 18% (12 patients). Overall, 257 bridging stents were implanted; of these, 225 (88%) were balloon-expandable and 32 (12%) were self-expanding. No strokes were observed among the patient completing the procedure from a TFA. One patient (2%) who failed to be treated completely from a TFA and needed a bailout UEA suffered an ischemic stroke on postoperative day 2. There were 10 (15%) major access-site complications. At 1-year follow-up, overall survival was 80%, and the rate of branch instability was 6%.

CONCLUSIONS

A TFA for TV cannulation is a safe and feasible option with high technical success preventing the stroke risk of UEA. Primary patency at midterm seems comparable to historical controls, and future larger studies will be needed to assess potential differences with alternative options.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Using a transfemoral approach for retrograde cannulation of reno-visceral branches is feasiable, safe and effective, thereby representing a reliable alternative for BEVAR interventions.

Multicentre International Registry of Open Surgical Versus Percutaneous Upper Extremity Access During Endovascular Aortic Procedures

OBJECTIVE

To investigate access failure (AF) and stroke rates of aortic procedures performed with upper extremity access (UEA), and compare results of open surgical vs. percutaneous UEA techniques with closure devices.

METHODS

A physician initiated, multicentre, ambispective, observational registry (SUPERAXA - NCT04589962) was carried out of patients undergoing aortic procedures requiring UEA, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement, aortic arch, and thoraco-abdominal aortic endovascular repair, pararenal parallel grafts, renovisceral and iliac vessel repair. Only vascular procedures performed with an open surgical or percutaneous (with a suture mediated vessel closure device) UEA were analysed. Risk factors and endpoints were classified according to the Society for Vascular Surgery and VARC-3 (Valve Academic Research Consortium) reporting standards. A logistic regression model was used to identify AF and stroke risk predictors, and propensity matching was employed to compare the UEA closure techniques.

RESULTS

Sixteen centres registered 1 098 patients (806 men [73.4%]; median age 74 years, interquartile range 69 - 79 years) undergoing vascular procedures using open surgical (76%) or percutaneous (24%) UEA. Overall AF and stroke rates were 6.8% and 3.0%, respectively. Independent predictors of AF by multivariable analysis included pacemaker ipsilateral to the access (odds ratio [OR] 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 - 12.1; p = .026), branched and fenestrated procedure (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.2 - 9.6; p = .019) and introducer internal diameter ≥ 14 F (OR 6.6, 95% CI 2.1 - 20.7; p = .001). Stroke was associated with female sex (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 - 9.0; p = .013), vessel diameter > 7 mm (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 - 13.8; p = .037), and aortic arch procedure (OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.7 - 31.1; p = .007). After 1:1 propensity matching, there was no difference between open surgical and percutaneous cohorts. However, a statistically significantly higher number of adjunctive endovascular procedures was recorded in the percutaneous cohort (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

AF and stroke rates during complex aortic procedures employing UEA are non-negligible. Therefore, selective use of UEA is warranted. Percutaneous access with vessel closure devices is associated with similar complication rates, but more adjunctive endovascular procedures are required to avoid surgical exposure.

Comparison of upper extremity and transfemoral access for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The use of upper extremity (UE) access is an accepted and often implemented approach for fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR). The advent of steerable sheaths has enabled the performance of F-BEVAR using a total transfemoral (TF) approach without UE access, potentially decreasing the risks of cerebral embolic events. The purpose of the present study was to assess the outcomes of F-BEVAR using UE vs TF access.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from nine physician-sponsored investigational device exemption studies at U.S. centers were analyzed using a standardized database. All patients were treated for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) using industry-manufactured fenestrated and branched stent grafts between 2005 and 2020. The outcomes were compared between patients who had undergone UE vs total TF access. The primary composite outcome was stroke or transient ischemia attack (TIA) and 30-day or in-patient mortality during the perioperative period. The secondary outcomes included technical success, local access-related complications, and perioperative mortality.

RESULTS

Among 1681 patients (71% men; mean age, 73.43 ± 7.8 years) who had undergone F-BEVAR, 502 had had CAAAs (30%), 535 had had extent IV TAAAs (32%), and 644 had had extent I to III TAAAs (38%). UE access was used for 1103 patients (67%). The right side was used for 395 patients (24%) and the left side for 705 patients (42%). UE access was preferentially used for TAAAs (74% vs 47%; P < .001). In contrast, TF access was used more frequently for CAAAs (53% vs 26%; P < .01). A total of 38 perioperative cerebrovascular events (2.5%), including 32 strokes (1.9%) and 6 TIAs (0.4%), had occurred. Perioperative cerebrovascular events had occurred more frequently with UE access than with TF access (2.8% vs 1.2%; P = .036). An individual component analysis of the primary composite outcome revealed a trend for more frequent strokes (2.3% vs 1.2%; P = .13) and TIAs (0.54% vs 0%; P = .10) in the UE access group. On multivariable analysis, total TF access was associated with a 60% reduction in the frequency of perioperative cerebrovascular events (odds ratio, 0.39; P = .029). No significant differences were observed between UE and TF access in the technical success rate (96.5% vs 96.8%; P = .72), perioperative mortality (2.9% vs 2.6%; P = .72), or local access-related complications (6.5% vs 5.5%; P = .43).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present large, multicenter, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, a total TF approach for F-BEVAR was associated with a lower rate of perioperative cerebrovascular events compared with UE access. Although the cerebrovascular event rate was low with UE access, the TF approach offered a lower risk of stroke and TIA. UE access will continue to play a role for appropriately selected patients requiring more complex repairs with anatomy not amenable to the TF approach.

Percutaneous Axillary Artery Puncture: An Efficient Approach for Upper Extremity Access

BACKGROUND

The aim was to analyze the anatomic feasibility of the percutaneous axillary access (PAXA) using cadaverous models and then to analyze the complications associated with PAXA during Fenestrated or Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (F/BEVAR) procedures.

METHODS

Cadaverous models were used to analyze axillary pedicle after a PAXA on an initial anatomical investigation. A subclavian approach was performed after puncture to assess the injuries caused by the needle. Then, in an observational study, patients who underwent F/BEVAR using a PAXA between July 2019 and July 2021 were included. PAXA-related events and complications were monitored.

RESULTS

Eleven dissections were performed on cadavers. The axillary vein was injured twice (18.2%); the puncture site on the axillary artery was found on the arterial proximal part, behind the clavicle. Fifty-three patients underwent a F/BEVAR using a PAXA. The mean (SD) age of patients was 74.5 (9.7) years. Most indications for endovascular repair were para-renal aneurysms (66%). Two Proglide® closure devices served to close arterial access in all procedures. Adjunct balloon inflation was used in 19 (35.8%) patients. There were 5 (9.4%) PAXA-related events included preoperative blush in 2 (3.8%) patients, axillary artery dissection in 2 (3.8%), and 1 (1.9%) axillary artery stenosis. Five patients (9.4%) had a postoperative axillary hematoma without need for additional surgical procedure. No PAXA-related complication was found after discharge (mean [SD] 11.7 [7.4] months following surgery).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous axillary artery access was an efficient upper extremity access and associated with a low rate of PAXA-related events.

Utilization of retrograde left subclavian branch portal of Gore TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis for physician modified fenestrated branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm

A 75-year-old man who had undergone zone 2 thoracic endovascular repair of a symptomatic penetrating aortic ulcer using a Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis (TBE) device (W.L. Gore & Associates) 5 years before had presented with an enlarging extent I thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. A physician-modified five-vessel fenestrated-branched endograft repair was performed using preloaded wires. The visceral renal vessels were sequentially catheterized from the left brachial access via the TBE portal, and the endograft was deployed in staggered fashion. At 1 year of follow-up, imaging studies demonstrated a stable aneurysm sac, patent visceral renal branches, and no endoleak. The retrograde portal of Gore TAG TBE can facilitate fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Vascular Access Challenges in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

This review aims to comprehensively summarize access challenges in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) by describing vascular access routes, associated risks, outcomes, and complications.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted utilizing the PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Qualitative and quantitative data from selected studies are extracted and discussed according to available standards for narrative reviews.

RESULTS

In total, there were 109 eligible studies based on predefined inclusion- and exclusion criteria. There were 39 original articles or reviews and 57 case series or case reports. This article summarizes the evidence from these studies and discusses traditional retrograde access routes and techniques for TEVAR via a femoral or iliac route, with or without the use of conduits. Next, alternative antegrade access routes and techniques via a brachial, axillary, carotid, ascending aorta, transapical, transcaval, or another route are discussed. Vascular access complications are presented with specific attention to the importance of gender and alternative antegrade access routes.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple access routes and techniques are currently available to overcome access challenges associated with TEVAR, based on low grade evidence from heterogeneous studies. Future research that compares different access routes and techniques might help in the development of a tailored access protocol for specific patients with challenging TEVAR access.

A Single Center Review of a Total Transfemoral Approach to Upper Extremity Access in Branched and Fenestrated Physician Modified Endografts

BACKGROUND

Aortic aneurysms are normally treated by an endovascular approach. Due to the lack of devices and increasing experience, there is a growing number of complex aneurysms undergoing repair by physician modified endografts (PMEGs). Previously, our practice was to target visceral vessels exclusively through upper extremity access. We have since then shifted to an all transfemoral approach when possible. This study aims to show the operative benefits of transfemoral only approaches.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a PMEG at a tertiary center between 2015 and 2020 were included. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on branched vessel approach-transfemoral only versus axillary or composite (axillary and femoral). Forty-one patients had a pararenal or type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) and 15 patients had more complex TAAA. Primary outcomes were operative time, radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, contrast, and blood loss. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and major adverse events. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between approach type and the main outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included with 48% (n = 27) in the transfemoral group and 52% (n = 29) in the axillary/composite group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Intraoperative outcomes revealed significant increase in the average operative time (418 vs. 246 min, P < 0.001), in radiation exposure (2,755 vs. 1,740 mGy, P = 0.03), in fluoroscopy time (108 vs. 74 min, P = 0.01) and in blood loss (579 vs. 202 cc, P = 0.002) in the axillary/composite group compared to the transfemoral group. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or major adverse events including stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows a transfemoral approach to complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair as opposed to axillary/composite approach has decreased operative time, radiation exposure, and fluoroscopy time and no significant differences in 30-day mortality or major adverse events. When treating complex aneurysms, improving efficiency is important to minimize morbidity to patients and operators.

Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms

Fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) has gained widespread acceptance in patients with complex aortic aneurysms. It has evolved from an alternative to treat elderly and higher risk patients to the first line of treatment in most patients with suitable anatomy, independent of the clinical risk. Currently, these devices are available off-the-shelf (ready to use) and tailored to the patient anatomy with the options of fenestrated, branched and mixed fenestrated, and branched designs. Reports from single and multicenter experiences and systematic reviews have shown lower mortality and morbidity for FB-EVAR compared with historical results of open surgical repair. The main advantages are noted on mortality, respiratory complications, acute kidney injury, and length of hospital stay. The purpose of this article is to review the advances in the endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms exploring the indications for treatment, preoperative evaluation, patient selection, device design, and implantation technique.

Outcomes of upper access with surgical exposure of the axillary artery in fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess the safety of upper access with surgical exposure of the axillary artery in fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR), evaluating neurologic and local complications as well as reinterventions associated with this technique.

METHODS

All patients undergoing a F/B-EVAR procedure with surgical exposure of the axillary artery between January 2010 and March 2020 were included in this retrospective single-centre study. Endpoints were neurological and access-related complications and reinterventions related to the upper extremity access. Complications related to the technique included stroke/transient ischaemic attack, wound infection, peripheral nerve injury and arterial complications.

RESULTS

264 patients (192 male, mean age 70 ± 7 years) were included. Upper access was performed over the left axillary artery in 257 (97%) of the cases, and over the right axillary artery in the remaining seven cases. Six (2,2%) patients had early complications related to the arterial access: four with postoperative bleeding and two with acute arm ischaemia. Two patients with postoperative bleeding and both patients with ischaemic complications required reintervention. One of these patients with arm ischaemia died five weeks after the reintervention due to sepsis complications related to patch infection. Sixteen (6%) patients presented transient arm paraesthesia or sensory neurologic deficit postoperatively. The symptoms completely recovered in all cases with no residual deficits. Perioperative ischaemic stroke occurred in three (1%) patients (two minor, one major). No other access related complications were recorded during follow up in any of the patients with no cases of late stenosis/occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Upper access with surgical exposure of the axillary artery is a safe method for antegrade catheterization of fenestrations and branches in complex endovascular aneurysm repair.

Peri-Operative Management of Patients Undergoing Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair for Juxtarenal, Pararenal and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Preventing, Recognizing and Treating Complications to Improve Clinical Outcomes

The advent and refinement of complex endovascular techniques in the last two decades has revolutionized the field of vascular surgery. This has allowed an effective minimally invasive treatment of extensive disease involving the pararenal and the thoracoabdominal aorta. Fenestrated-branched EVAR (F/BEVAR) now represents a feasible technical solution to address these complex diseases, moving the proximal sealing zone above the renal-visceral vessels take-off and preserving their patency. The aim of this paper was to provide a narrative review on the peri-operative management of patients undergoing F/BEVAR procedures for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA), pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (PRAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurism (TAAA). It will focus on how to prevent, diagnose, and manage the complications ensuing from these complex interventions, in order to improve clinical outcomes. Indeed, F/BEVAR remains a technically, physiologically, and mentally demanding procedure. Intraoperative adverse events often require prolonged or additional procedures and complications may significantly impact a patient's quality of life, health status, and overall cost of care. The presence of standardized preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative pathways of care, together with surgeons and teams with significant experience in aortic surgery, should be considered as crucial points to improve clinical outcomes. Aggressive prevention, prompt diagnosis and timely rescue of any major adverse events following the procedure remain paramount clinical needs.

Multicenter Experience of Upper Extremity Access in Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

Upper extremity access (UEA) for antegrade cannulation of aortic side branches is a relevant part of endovascular treatment of complex aortic aneurysms and can be achieved using several techniques, sites and sides. The purpose of this study was to evaluate different UEA strategies in a multicenter registry of complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

In six aortic centers in the Netherlands, all endovascular aortic procedures from 2006 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received upper extremity access during complex EVAR were included. Primary outcome was a composite endpoint of any access complication, excluding minor hematomas. Secondary outcomes were access characteristics, access complications considered individually, access reinterventions and incidence of ischemic cerebrovascular events.

RESULTS

417 patients underwent 437 UEA for 303 fenestrated/branched EVARs, and 114 chimney EVARs. Twenty patients had bilateral, 295 left-sided, and 102 right-sided UEA. 413 approaches were performed surgically and 24 percutaneously. Distal brachial access was used in 89 cases, medial brachial in 149, proximal brachial in 140 and axillary access in 59 cases. No significant differences regarding the composite endpoint of access complications were seen (DBA 11.3% vs. MBA 6.7% vs. PBA 13.6% vs. AA 10.2%; p=.29). Postoperative neuropathy occurred most after proximal brachial access (DBA 1.1% vs. MBA 1.3% vs. PBA 9.3 % vs. AA 5.1%; p=.003). There were no differences in cerebrovascular complications between access sides (right 5.9% vs. left 4.1% vs. bilateral 5%; p=.75). Significantly more overall access complications were seen after a percutaneous approach (29.2% vs. 6.8%; p=.002). In multivariate analysis the risk for access complications after open approach was decreased by male gender (OR 0.27; CI 95% 0.10 - 0.72; p= .009), while an increase in age per year (OR 1.08; CI 95% 1.004 - 1.179; p=.039) and diabetes mellitus type 2 (OR 3.70; CI 95% 1.20 - 11.41; p= .023) increased the risk.

CONCLUSION

Between the four access localizations, there were no differences in overall access complications. Female gender, diabetes mellitus type 2 and ageing increased the risk for access complications after surgical approach. Furthermore, a percutaneous upper extremity access resulted in higher complication rates than a surgical approach.

Use of a Steerable Sheath for Completely Femoral Access in Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair Compared to Upper Extremity Access

PURPOSE

To compare bridging stent graft (BSG) implantation in downward oriented branches in branched endovascular aortic repair (bEVAR), using a commercially available steerable sheath from an exclusively femoral access (TFA) with traditional upper extremity access (UEA).

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, 7 patients with 19 branches in the TFA cohort received BSG insertion using the Medtronic Heli FX steerable sheath from a femoral access, and 10 patients with 32 branches in the UEA cohort from a brachial approach. Technical success, total intervention time, fluoroscopy time, branch cannulation time, and complication rate were recorded.

RESULTS

Technical success was 19/19 branches in the TFA and 31/32 in the UEA cohort. The mean branch cannulation time was considerably shorter in the TFA group (17 vs. 29 min, p = 0.003), and total intervention time tended to be shorter (169 vs. 217 min, p = 0.176).

CONCLUSION

Using a commercially available steerable sheath allowed successful cannulation of all branches in this cohort and was associated with significantly shorter branch cannulation times. Potentially, this technique can lower the stroke and brachial puncture site complication risk as well as reduce total intervention time and radiation dose.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2b, retrospective cohort study.

Perioperative neurologic outcomes of right versus left upper extremity access for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Upper extremity (UE) access is frequently used for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR), particularly for complex repairs. Traditionally, left-side UE access has been used to avoid crossing the arch and the origin of the supra-aortic vessels, which could potentially result in cerebral embolization and an increased risk of perioperative cerebrovascular events. More recently, right UE has been more frequently used as it is more convenient and ergonomic. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes and cerebrovascular events after F-BEVAR with the use of right- vs left-side UE access.

METHODS

During an 8-year period, 453 patients (71% male) underwent F-BEVAR at a single institution. UE access was used in more complex repairs. Left UE access was favored in the past, whereas right UE access is currently the preferred UE access side. Brachial artery cutdown was used in all patients for the placement of a 12F sheath. Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing right vs left UE access. End points included cerebrovascular events, perioperative mortality, technical success, and local access-related complications.

RESULTS

UE access was used in 361 (80%) patients. The right side was used in 232 (64%) and the left side in 129 (36%) patients for the treatment of 88 (25%) juxtarenal, 135 (38%) suprarenal, and 137 (38%) thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Most procedures were elective (94%). Technical success was achieved in 354 patients (98%). In-patient or 30-day mortality was 3.3%. Five (1%) perioperative strokes occurred in patients undergoing right UE access, of which three were ischemic and two were hemorrhagic. No transient ischemic attacks occurred perioperatively. Two hemorrhagic strokes were associated with permissive hypertension to prevent spinal cord ischemia. No perioperative strokes occurred in patients undergoing left UE access (P = .16). Overall, perioperative strokes occurred with similar frequency in patients undergoing UE (5, 1%) and femoral access only (1, 1%) (P = .99). Arm access-related complications occurred in 15 (5%) patients, 11 (4.8%) on the right side and 4 (6%) on the left side (P = .74).

CONCLUSIONS

Right UE access can be used for F-BEVAR with low morbidity and minimal risk of perioperative ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attacks. In general, UE access is not associated with an increased risk of perioperative stroke compared with femoral access only. Tight blood pressure control is, however, critical to avoid intracranial bleeding related to uncontrolled hypertension.

Percutaneous transAXillary access for endovascular aortic procedures in the multicenter international PAXA registry

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a suture-mediated vascular closure device to perform hemostasis after an axillary artery access during endovascular procedures on the aortic valve, the aorta and its side branches.

METHODS

A physician-initiated, international, multicenter, retrospective registry was designed to evaluate the success rate (VARC-2 reporting standards) of percutaneous transaxillary access closure with a suture-mediated closure device. Secondary end points were minor access vascular complications, transient peripheral nerve injury, stroke, and influence on periprocedural outcomes of puncture technique.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-one patients (median age, 76 years; 69.2% males) in 11 centers received a percutaneous transaxillary access during endovascular cardiac (n = 166) or vascular (n = 165) procedures. The closure success rate was 84.6%, with 5 open conversions (1.5%), 45 adjunctive endovascular procedures (13.6%), and 1 nerve injury (0.3%). Secondary closure success was obtained in 325 patients (98%) after 7 bare stenting, 37 covered stenting, and 1 thrombin injection. Introducer sheaths 16F or larger (odds ratio, 3.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-11.42) and balloon-assisted hemostasis (odds ratio, 4.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-15.68) were associated with closure failure. A threshold of five percutaneous axillary accesses was associated with decreased rates of open conversion, but not with increased primary closure success. Primary closure success was 90.3% in the 175 patients with sheaths smaller than 16F, performed after the first 5 procedures in each center. Temporary nerve injury and stroke were observed in 2% and 4% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous transaxillary aortic procedures, in selected patients, can be performed with low rates of open conversion. The need for additional endovascular bailout procedures is not negligible when introducers sheaths 16F or larger are required.

Early outcomes of the t-Branch off-the-shelf multi-branched stent graft in 542 patients for elective and urgent aortic pathologies - a retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

The t-Branch, a standardized off-the-shelf multi-branched stent graft has been used for the treatment of elective and urgent cases in aortic disease. The aim of this study was to assess the early outcomes in terms of technical success, mortality, and morbidity in >500 patients being treated with the t-Branch device.

METHODS

A two-center retrospective observational study was undertaken including patients treated using the t-Branch (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) in elective or urgent settings for complex abdominal aortic aneurysm and thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2014 and 2019 (early experience 2014-2016; late experience 2017-2019). Primary endpoints were technical success and early (30-day) mortality, and secondary endpoints were early morbidity, endoleak, and target vessel patency rates. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the independent association of risk factors with (1) mortality and (2) spinal cord ischemia.

RESULTS

A total of 542 patients (mean age, 70.5 ± 8.5 years; 388 men [72%]; mean aneurysm diameter, 7.5 ± 2.5 cm) were included (63% elective; 90% thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm). The technical success rate was 97% (526/542) (elective, 96.7% [328/339] vs urgent, 97.6% [208/213]). The total 30-day mortality rate was 12.3% (8.5% in elective, 15% in symptomatic, and 30% in contained rupture). After multivariate regression analysis, the mortality rate was associated with older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.11; P < .001) and with lower baseline glomerular filtration rate (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99; P < .001). In elective cases, the mortality rate was associated with a history of coronary artery disease (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.73; P < .011) and higher body mass index (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98; P < .027). In urgent cases, the mortality rate was associated with older age, (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13; P < .010) and lower baseline glomerular filtration rate (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P < .001). The spinal cord ischemia rate was 10.5% (6.5% temporary, 4% permanent) and was associated with the early study period (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.03-3.89; P < .038). The renal impairment rate was 13%, the stroke rate was 2.5%, and the myocardial infarction rate was 1.8%, whereas the access complications rate was 7.7%. On early computed tomography angiography, the primary patency rate for the right renal artery was 99.6%, for the left renal artery was 100%, for the superior mesenteric artery was 99.4%, and for the coeliac trunk was 99.8%. The endoleak I and III rates were 2.7% (15/542) and 2.7% (15/542), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective and urgent use of the t-Branch multi-branched off-the shelf stent graft showed high technical success and early target vessel patency rates. Early mortality and morbidity rates were acceptable.

The Early Outcomes of BeGraft Peripheral Plus in Branched Endovascular Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

No bridging stent-graft (BSG) has been specifically designed for branched endovascular aortic repair (BEVAR) and therefore different "off-label" stent-grafts have been used. Recently, a third generation of balloon-expandable stent-graft has become available. Here we evaluate the outcomes of the BeGraft Peripheral Plus (B+) used as a BSG for internal/externalor inner branches during BEVAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing BEVAR using B+ as a BSG since its release in 2017 were included into the study. The primary endpoints were technical success and target vessel patency during follow-up. Secondary endpoints included the need for adjunct extension and relining of the BSG, branch instability rate, including occlusion, reinterventions for restonosis, kink, fracture, or endoleak (types 1 and 3).

RESULTS

A total of 163 visceral branches in 46 patients were included with a median follow-up 15 months (4-36 months). Primary technical success was achieved in all visceral branches (69 inner branches and 94 internal/external branches) with the exception of 1 BSG that required serial dilatation until full expansion was achieved with overall branch patency was 98% at 2 years. An additional stent-graft was necessary in 35 branches (21%) following deployment of a B+ BSG to cover a longer bridging distance and optimize the distal and proximal sealing. Relining of B+ BSG was not routinely carried out during the index procedure and a self-expanding uncovered nitinol stent was necessary in only 3% of branches to smooth the distal transition zone between the BSG and target vessel. There were 4 events (2.4%) of branch related instability, including 2 occlusions and 2 late reinterventions for a partial in-stent-graft thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Our study findings show satisfactory early outcomes of B+ as a BSG in BEVAR with low occlusion and reintervention rates. Extensions of BSG might be required to achieve adequate seal in the target vessels but routine relining BSG in branches was not required.

WILD Sheath Technique: "WIre Loop Directional" Sheath for Retrograde Femoral Access in Branched Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (BEVAR) necessitates upper limb access (ULA) to facilitate the antegrade cannulation of downward directional branches and the placement of the bridging stent grafts. Various technical solutions to avoid ULA have been proposed and successfully applied in a limited number of cases. This can be necessary in specific clinical scenarios such as hostile aortic arch and descending thoracic aortic anatomy, or in the case of previous aortic arch and supra-aortic vessels surgery complicating the conventional approach with ULA in BEVAR. Taking inspiration from the prior description of a precursory technique, we report the application of our technique in BEVAR procedures, using standard introducer sheaths as a directional stable platform to facilitate an "All Femoral Access" (AFA) approach without the need for ULA, snaring or commercial steerable sheaths. Our concept is based on utilizing a wire loop to form a directional sheath (WILD sheath technique).

Comparison of transfemoral versus upper extremity access to antegrade branches in branched endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

We studied the outcomes of transfemoral access (TFA) vs upper extremity access (UEA) for branched endovascular aortic repair (BEVAR).

METHODS

From January 2016 to October 2019, 152 consecutive patients underwent BEVAR under general anesthesia at a single institution. In 2018, an alternative approach to the antegrade branches using TFA compared with conventional UEA was introduced. The cohort was divided into TFA and UEA groups according to the access approach. The end points were technical success, adverse events (including perioperative stroke/transient ischemic attack), access complications, operation time, and radiation exposure.

RESULTS

The TFA group included 60 patients (63% male; median age, 71 years; interquartile range [IQR], 65-76 years). The UEA group included 92 patients (67% male; median age, 73 years; IQR, 66-78 years). The number of target vessels (TVs) was similar in both groups (median, 4.0 TVs per procedure; range, 1-7 TVs for both). Technical success was greater in the TFA group (60 of 60 patients; 209 of 209 TVs) than in the UEA group (87 of 92 patients; 334 of 346 TVs; P < .01). The fluoroscopy time (median, 69 minutes; IQR, 48-87 minutes; vs 88 minutes; IQR, 65-104 minutes; P = .39) and contrast agent volume (median, 141 mL; IQR, 123-165 mL; vs median, 130 mL; IQR, 101-157 mL; P = .34) were similar in both groups. The radiation exposure (221 Gy × cm²; IQR, 138-406 Gy × cm²; vs median, 255 Gy × cm²; IQR, 148-425 Gy × cm²; P = .05) was lower and the operation time (median, 300 minutes; IQR, 240-356 minutes; vs median, 364 minutes; IQR, 290-475 minutes; P = .01) was shorter in the TFA group. Brachial access complications (0 of 60 vs 3 of 92 patients) and perioperative strokes/transient ischemic attacks (0 of 60 vs 8 of 92 patients) only occurred in the UEA group (P = .018).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of TFA to catheterize antegrade branches was associated with a lower rate of complications in the present study and has become our preferred approach for BEVAR.

Improved stability of steerable sheath access by femoro-femoral crossover wire in branched stent graft repair of complex thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to describe a technique to catheterize antegrade branches of a branched aortic endograft by using a steerable sheath stabilized by a through-and-through wire via a femoral access.

Technique

After implantation of a branched endovascular graft, a steerable 8.5 F sheath is advanced from the femoral access. After placing the sheath proximal to the branches, a 0.014″ through-and-through wire is established to the contralateral femoral access which is held under slight traction after the curved tip of the sheath is brought into the 180° position. Then catheterization, wire exchange and deployment of the bridging stent is done in standard fashion.

Conclusion

The use of a through-and-through wire with a steerable sheath for retrograde femoral access adds stability and precision to this technique. It has the potential to reduce the risk of preoperative stroke in complex aortic endovascular repair by avoiding upper extremity access.

Comparison of Cerebral Embolic Events Between Right and Left Upper Extremity Access During Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair

Purpose:

To evaluate the incidence and outcomes of cerebral embolic events when using right (RUE) vs left upper extremity (LUE) access for fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair (f/bEVAR).

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective review was conducted of 290 consecutive patients enrolled in a physician-sponsored Investigational Device Exemption study to evaluate f/bEVAR between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 270 patients (93%) had an upper extremity access with 12-F sheaths, including 205 patients (mean age 75±8 years; 147 men) with LUE and 65 patients (mean age 73±8 years; 42 men) with RUE access. Outcome measures were technical success, procedural metrics, major adverse events (MAEs), any stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), and mortality.

Results:

Technical success was higher (p=0.04) for LUE (99.6%) vs RUE access (98.4%). Patients treated via RUE access more often had extent I-III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (57% vs 39%, p=0.03). Procedural metrics were similar for LUE vs RUE sides, including endovascular time (255±80 vs 246±83 minutes, respectively; p=0.23), fluoroscopy time (84±32 vs 90±35 minutes, respectively; p=0.80), and contrast volume (156±57 vs 153±56 mL, respectively; p=0.82). Total radiation exposure was significantly higher for LUE vs RUE access (2463±1912 vs 1757±1494 mGy, respectively; p=0.02). There were 2 deaths (1%) at 30 days or during hospital admission, both unrelated to access site complications. MAEs occurred in 32% of patients who had LUE and 26% of those who had RUE access (p=0.44). Five patients (2%) had embolic stroke and none had TIA. Embolic strokes were ipsilateral to the access side in 4 patients and affected the posterior circulation in 3. Two patients (1%) had hemorrhagic strokes. The incidence of stroke was 3% for LUE and 2% for RUE access (p>0.99).

Conclusion:

Fenestrated/branched stent-graft repair was associated with low rates of cerebral embolic events and no significant difference between the right vs left upper extremity approach.

Delayed severe median nerve palsy due to undiagnosed brachial pseudoaneurysm

Post-catheterization pseudoaneurysms are a well-known complication of many endovascular procedures at the site of arterial puncture. However, long-term neurological complications due to undiagnosed compression are rare. A 60-year-old man presented to our unit for round, non-pulsatile, painless swelling in the inner side of his upper arm. Clinical examination showed finger paralysis, associated with amyotrophy of the forearm. Large brachial pseudoaneurysm with median nerve compression was diagnosed. The patient underwent autologous vein bypass, with poor 6-month neurological recovery. Early diagnosis of pseudoaneurysms is paramount because, when associated with nerve compression, the longer the diagnostic delay, the poorer the neurological prognosis.