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

Vascular Closure Devices For Axillary Artery Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the technical success and complication rates of vascular closure devices (VCDs) in the axillary artery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched independently by two reviewers to identify observational studies from inception through October 2021. The following outcomes were meta-analyzed: technical success, hematoma, dissection, pseudoaneurysm, infection, and local neurological complications. Complications were also graded as mild, moderate, and severe. A logistic regression evaluating the influence of sheath size for the outcome of technical success rate was performed using individual patient-level data.

RESULTS

Of 1496 unique records, 20 observational studies were included, totaling 915 unique arterial access sites. Pooled estimates were as follows: technical success 84.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78%-89.7%, I2=60.4%), hematoma 7.9% (95% CI: 5.8%-10.6%, I2=0%), dissection 3.1% (95% CI: 1.3%-7.3%, I2=0%), pseudoaneurysm 2.7% (95% CI: 1.3%-5.7%, I2=0%), infection <1% (95% CI: 0%-5.7%, I2=20.5%), and local neurological complications 2.7% (95% CI: 1.7%-4.4%, I2=0%). There was a significant negative association between sheath size and technical success rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.87 per 1 French (Fr) increase in sheath size, 95% CI: 0.80-0.94, p=0.0005). Larger sheath sizes were associated with a greater number of access-site complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.21 per 1 Fr increase sheath size, 95% CI: 1.04-1.40, p=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Off-label use of VCDs in the axillary artery provides an 85% successful closure rate and variable complication rate, depending on the primary procedure and sheath size. Larger sheaths were associated with a lower technical success and greater rate of access-related complications.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Safe arterial access is the foundation for arterial intervention. While the common femoral artery is a well established access site, alternative arterial access sites capable of larger sheath sizes are needed in the modern endovascular era. This article provides the largest synthesis to date on the use of vascular closure devices for percutaneous axillary artery access in endovascular intervention. It should serve clinicians with added confidence around this approach in terms of providing a reference for technical success and complications. Clinically, this data is relevant for patient consent purposes as well as for practice quality improvement in setting safety standards for this access site.

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.

Percutaneous transaxillary approach through the first segment of the axillary artery for the Impella-supported PCI Versus TAVR

Percutaneous transaxillary approach (PTAX) through the first segment of the axillary artery is not widely recognized as a safe method. Furthermore, PTAX has never been directly compared between Impella-supported percutaneous coronary interventions (Impella-PCI) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of PTAX through the first axillary segment in Impella-PCI versus TAVR. In cases where standard imaging guidance was insufficient, a technique involving puncturing the axillary artery "on-the-balloon" was employed. The endpoints were bleeding and vascular complications, as defined by BARC and VARC-3 criteria. PTAX was successfully performed in all 46 attempted cases: 23 for Impella-PCI and 23 for TAVR. Strict adherence to BARC and VARC-3 criteria led to the frequent identification of major bleeding (57%) and a moderately frequent diagnosis of vascular complications (17%). These incidences were primarily based on post-procedural hemoglobin reduction (> 3 g/dl) but not overt bleeding. The Impella group exhibited a higher rate of BARC 3b bleeding due to a greater hemoglobin decline resulting from the prolonged implant duration and PCI itself. Left axillary access was linked to smaller blood loss. Bleeding and vascular complications, as per BARC and VARC-3 definitions, did not affect short-term prognosis, with only 3 Impella patients succumbing to heart failure unrelated to the procedures during one-month follow-up period.

Access Site-Stratified Analysis of the Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Impella-Supported Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

This study aimed to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of Impella-assisted patients with cardiogenic shock, stratified by the access site-transaxillary (TX) or trans-subclavian (TS) versus the conventional transfemoral (TF) approach. For this study, we analyzed the cases entered into the Japanese Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device registry between February 2020 and December 2021. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to identify the predictors of the TX/TS approach, with reference to those who received the conventional TF approach. A log-rank test was performed to compare the 30-day mortality between the 2 approaches. A total of 2,564 cases of Impella were included in the study, of which 167 (6.5%) were accessed by way of the TX/TS approach. TX/TS approach cases were younger and had a higher percentage of concomitant use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or an intra-aortic balloon pump. The predictors of the TX/TS approach included a presentation with the acute coronary syndrome (aOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.63, p <0.001), cardiac arrest (aOR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.36, p = 0.003), cardiogenic shock (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.79, p = 0.002), and inotropic use (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.49, p = 0.033). The 30-day mortality was comparable between TX/TS and TF approaches (29.3% vs 29.6%, respectively; log-rank, p = 0.64). Our analysis revealed that approximately 6% of the Impella-assisted patients with cardiogenic shock received the TX/TS approach as their first access site. These results suggest that the TX/TS approach may be a viable alternative to the TF approach in certain patients requiring Impella support.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Access to the First Versus Third Segment of Axillary Artery During Aortic Procedures

PURPOSE

This article aims at investigating the outcomes of percutaneous access via the first versus third axillary artery (AXA) segments with closure devices during aortic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients receiving percutaneous AXA access closed with Perclose ProGlide device (Abbott, Santa Clara, California) from 2008 to 2021 were included in a retrospective multicenter registry (NCT: 04589962). Efficacy endpoint was the technically successful percutaneous procedure (no open conversion). Safety endpoints were stroke and access complications according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 reporting standards. The first (AXA1) or third (AXA3) axillary puncture sites were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 412 percutaneous AXA accesses were included: 172 (42%) in AXA1 and 240 (58%) in AXA3. Left AXA was catheterized in 363 cases (76% of AXA1 vs 97% of AXA3, p<0.001) and 91% of fenestrated/branched endovascular repair (F/BEVAR) procedures were conducted from the left. A ≥12F internal diameter (ID) sheath was used in 49% of procedures. Open conversion rate was 1%, no major vascular complications occurred, and only one major non-vascular complication was recorded. Primary closure failure occurred in 18 AXA1 (11%) and 32 AXA3 accesses (13%), treated by covered (8.3%) or bare-metal (2.7%) stenting. Bailout stent patency was 100% at median follow-up of 12 months, with 6 of 6 stents still patent after >36 months of follow-up. Stroke rate was 4.4%. An introducer sheath >12F was independently associated with both access complications (p<0.001) and stroke (p=0.005), while a right-side access was associated with stroke only (p=0.034). Even after adjustment for covariates, AXA1 versus AXA3 showed an equal success rate (odds ratio [OR]=0.537, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.011-1.22 for AXA3, p=0.104). The combination of AXA3 and a >10F introducer sheath provided worse outcomes compared with >10F sheaths through AXA1 (OR for success=0.367, 95% CI=0.176-0.767, p=0.008). This was not confirmed for >12F sheaths, associated with similar outcomes (p=0.31 AXA 1 vs AXA 3).

CONCLUSION

Major local complications with the percutaneous axillary approach and ≤12F sheaths are infrequent and solvable by complementary endovascular interventions. Stroke risk remains an issue. First and third AXA segments are both amenable for access with good results, but larger sheaths (12F) perform better in AXA1.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Percutaneous access with vascular closure devices at the first or third axillary artery (AXA) segments during aortic procedures is burdened by a negligible risk of open conversion. Local complications with the percutaneous axillary approach are infrequent and solvable by complementary endovascular interventions. First and third AXA segments are both amenable to access with excellent results, but larger sheaths (12F) perform better in the wider first AXA segment. In this setting, bailout stenting does not appear to be associated with mid-term stent occlusion.

The Development of Totally Percutaneous Aortic Arch Repair With Inner-Branch Endografts: Experience From 2 Centers

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study is to present the experience of 2 centers undertaking total percutaneous aortic arch-branched graft endovascular repair using combination of femoral and axillary routes. The report summarizes the procedural steps, outcomes achieved, and the benefits of this approach, which eliminates the need for direct open surgical exposure of the carotid, subclavian, or axillary arteries, thereby reducing the unnecessary associated surgical risks.

METHODS

Retrospectively collected data of 18 consecutive patients (15M:3F) undergoing aortic arch endovascular repair using a branched device between February 2021 and June 2022 at 2 aortic units. Six patients were treated for a residual aortic arch aneurysm following previous type A dissection with size range of (58-67 mm in diameter), 10 were treated for saccular or fusiform degenerative atheromatous aneurysm with size range of (51.5-80 mm in diameter), and 2 were treated for penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) with size range of (50-55 mm). Technical success was defined as completion of the procedure and satisfactory placement of the bridging stent grafts (BSGs) in the supra-aortic vessels percutaneously including the brachiocephalic trunk (BCT), left common carotid artery (LCCA), and left subclavian artery (LSA) without the need for carotid, subclavian, or axillary cut down. The primary technical success was examined as primary outcome well as any other related complications and reinterventions as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The primary technical success with our alternative approach was achieved in all 18 cases. There was one access site complication (groin haematoma), which was managed conservatively. There was no incidence of death, stroke, or cases of paraplegia. No other immediate complications were noted. Postoperative imaging confirmed supra-aortic branch patency, with satisfactory position of the BSGs and immediate aneurysm exclusion except in 4 patients who had type 1C endoleak (Innominate: 2, LSA 2) detected on the first postoperative scan. Three of them were treated with relining/extension, and 1 spontaneously resolved after 6 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Total percutaneous aortic arch repair with antegrade and retrograde inner-branch endografts can be performed with promising early results. Dedicated steerable sheaths and appropriate BSG would optimize the percutaneous approach for aortic arch endovascular repairs.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This article provides an alternative and innovative approach to improve the minimally invasive techniques in the endovascular treatment of the aortic arch conditions.

Endovascular Options for the Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch - A Scoping Review

The gold standard for aneurysmal repair of the ascending aorta and the aortic arch has been open surgery with an established track record of good results in suitable patients. In recent years, with innovations in the endovascular field alternative endovascular solutions for pathologies of the aortic arch and ascending aorta became available. At first reserved only for highly selected patients unfit for open surgery, endovascular aortic arch repair is now being offered to patients with suitable anatomy in high volume referral centers after discussion in an interdisciplinary team. The present scoping review aims at providing an overview on indications, available devices, technical aspects and feasibility studies of endovascular arch repair both in elective and emergent situations, including also experiences and considerations from our center.

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.

Technical tips and clinical experience with the Cook Triple inner arch branch stent-graft

Open surgical repair remains the gold standard for treatment for aortic arch diseases, but these operations can be associated with wide heterogeneity in outcomes and significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in elderly patients with severe comorbidities or those who had prior arch procedures via median sternotomy. Endovascular repair has been introduced as a less invasive alternative to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with open surgical repair. The technique evolved with new device designs using up to three inner branches for incorporation of the supra-aortic trunks. This manuscript summarizes technical tips and clinical experience with the triple inner arch branch stent graft for total endovascular repair of aortic arch pathologies.

Total Transfemoral Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair Using 3-Vessel Inner Branch Stent-Graft

Endovascular repair has been introduced to decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with open surgical repair of aortic arch pathology. We illustrate total percutaneous transfemoral approach with a 3-vessel inner branch stent-graft to treat aortic arch aneurysm. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

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.

Percutaneous proximal axillary artery versus femoral artery access for endovascular interventions

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study is to describe and illustrate the technique of ultrasound-guided percutaneous proximal axillary artery (PAA) access, and secondarily to evaluate the versatility and safety of this approach in peripheral, visceral, and aortic endovascular interventions.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective review of all peripheral, visceral, and aortic endovascular cases using percutaneous PAA access from February 2019 to March 2021 compared with a sample of an equivalent number of consecutive cases completed via percutaneous common femoral artery (CFA) access during the same time period. Access entry success, minor and major access site complications within 30 days, major adverse events within 30 days, demographics, and procedural details were analyzed using standard statistical analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 115 accesses-59 PAA and 56 CFA-were reviewed during the study period. Group demographics were not significantly different. Access entry success was achieved in 58 (98.3%) and 56 (100%) of PAA and CFA accesses, respectively, with no statistically significant difference. There were no significant differences in minor access-site complications (13.6% vs 5.4%; P = .21) major access site complications (3.4% vs 7.1%; P = .43), or major adverse events (6.8% vs 5.4%). between the PAA and CFA groups. With respect to versatility, PAA cases had a significantly greater mean number of vessels intervened on per procedure compared with CFA access (2.59 ± 1.31 vs 1.95 ± 0.98; P < .01). A wide range of target vessels were intervened on in both groups. PAA cases had significantly more bilateral lower leg interventions (28.8% vs 12.5%; P = .04). PAA access had a significantly longer mean procedure time (103.2 minutes vs 58.63 minutes; P < .001) and fluoroscopy time (18.21 minutes vs 12.87 minutes; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

The PAA is a feasible, versatile, and safe percutaneous access option for endovascular intervention. The in-line trajectory from this site facilitates visceral, renal, aortic, and bilateral lower extremity interventions with ease. Outcomes, complications, and major adverse events are similar to those of conventional CFA access in the short term.