Closure of Alternative Vascular Sites, Including Axillary, Brachial, Popliteal, and Surgical Grafts

Periprocedural Outcomes of Popliteal vs Upper Extremity Access in the Treatment of Superficial Femoral Artery Occlusive Disease

PURPOSE

Percutaneous lower extremity revascularization is being performed via upper extremity, pedal, or popliteal access with increasing frequency. This study aimed to compare periprocedural outcomes of popliteal (POA) and upper extremity (UEA) access for the treatment of isolated superficial femoral artery (SFA) occlusive disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study compared the outcomes of patients undergoing primary percutaneous intervention of SFA occlusive disease with POA or UEA using the Vascular Quality Initiative database from December 2010 to June 2019. Our primary endpoint was technical success. Secondary endpoints included factors associated with perioperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 349 patients underwent isolated SFA intervention through the popliteal, radial, or brachial artery. UEA was performed in 188 (53.9%) patients and POA in 161 (46.1%). Technical success with TASC A lesions was 95.8% and with TASC D lesions, 65.0%. POA had a higher proportion of TASC D lesions (24.8% vs 10.6%, p<0.001), and larger (≥7 Fr) sheath size (14.3% vs 2.7%, p<0.001). UEA had a higher proportion of no calcification (27.1% vs 11.2%, p<0.001), and smaller (4-5 Fr) sheath size (46.8% vs 34.8%, p=0.023). There was no difference in technical success between UEA and POA (88.8% vs 84.5%, p=0.230), which was also seen on multivariable analysis (p=0.985). Univariate analysis revealed technical failure was associated with TASC D lesions (45.7% vs 12.9%, p<0.001) and the presence of severe calcifications (39.1% vs 17.5%, p=0.002). Multivariable analysis confirmed technical failure was associated with degree of calcification (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.18 to 4.89; p=0.016) and TASC D lesions (OR, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.45 to 10.24; p<0.001). Postoperative complications were associated with UEA on univariate (p=0.041) and multivariate analysis (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.80 to 5.37; p=0.016). Access site complications were also associated with UEA compared to POA (4.3% vs 0.0%, p=0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in technical success between UEA and POA when treating isolated SFA occlusive disease, and UEA is associated with a higher complication rate. Technical success is dependent on calcification and TASC II classification. Based on similar technical success rates and low complication rates, POA should be considered as a viable alternative to UEA when planning endovascular interventions.

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

Aim

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Avoiding peripheral nerve injury in arterial interventions

Although peripheral nerve injuries secondary to angiography and endovascular interventions are uncommon and usually not permanent, they can result in significant functional impairment. Most arteries used in access for angiography and endovascular therapies lie in close proximity to a nerve. The nerve may be injured by needle puncture, or by compression from hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, hemostasis devices, or by manual compression with incidence in literature ranging from as low as 0.04% for femoral access in a large retrospective study to 9% for brachial and axillary access. Given the increasing frequency of endovascular arterial procedures and the increasing use of nontraditional access points, it is important that the interventionalist have a working knowledge of peripheral nerve anatomy and function as it relates to relevant arterial access sites to avoid injury.

Aortofemoral Bypass Graft Access for Impella Placement

Left ventricular support with Impella requires a large-bore sheath. Alternate access sites have often been required in patients with severe peripheral artery disease. This paper reports the first case in which an aortofemoral bypass graft for Impella access was used in a patient without other alternatives and the method of access closure. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.)

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Hemostasis After Brachial Artery Access With the MynxGrip Device: A Case Report

Purpose

Brachial access is occasionally used for endovascular procedures when other more established or safer ones (eg, femoral or radial) are contraindicated. Although manual compression is the standard of care after brachial arteriotomy, suboptimal compression may lead to bleeding or thrombosis. Arteriotomy closure devices have thus been proposed as an alternative means to achieve hemostasis after brachial arteriotomy. Yet, there is a paucity of evidence and a limited spectrum of devices suitable for brachial arteriotomy closure. We present the use of the MynxGrip closure device after brachial arteriotomy.

Case

A 70-year-old gentleman underwent brachial arteriotomy followed by iliac artery stenting with a 7F compatible device. Hemostasis was then achieved with the MynxGrip device, uneventfully.

Conclusions

This clinical vignette highlights the feasibility and safety of brachial use of the MynxGrip device in experienced hands, suggesting that it can represent a useful adjunct to the armamentarium of the endovascular specialist.