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

Safety and Effectiveness of Brachial Artery Preclosure by Purse-String Suture Technique for Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization in Stanford B Aortic Dissection

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of the combination of brachial artery (BA) cutdown with purse-string suture (PSS) for BA preclosure during fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (f-TEVAR).

METHODS

We reviewed the consecutive data in our center from January 2022 to May 2023. Clinical data were analyzed retrospectively, including the baseline characteristics, procedural details, complications, and outcomes. Dichotomous data were summarized as absolute values and percentages. Continuous variables were presented as median values and interquartile ranges (IQRs). All patients underwent arterial cutdown with the PSS technique for BA preclosure. The technique was considered successful when complete hemostasis was achieved and confirmed by ultrasonography 24 h postoperatively. The patients were followed up 30 days postoperatively for access-related complications.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients who underwent f-TEVAR with 48 BA access sites were included [36 males and 12 females; median age: 62 (IQR: 30-78) years]. The median body mass index was 27.3 (IQR: 21.2-32.7) kg/m2. The median access establishing and closing times were 7.8 (IQR: 6-9.3) min and 3.7 (IQR: 2.5-5) min, respectively. The median operative time and length of stay were 75 (IQR: 63-87) min and 7 (IQR: 5-9) days, respectively. Although the success rate was 100%, partial numbness in the median nerve distribution was noted in 1 patient in the forearm. This resolved spontaneously and no permanent neurological problem was seen. No other access-related complications were noted, and the total complication rate was 2.1% (1/48).

CONCLUSIONS

BA preclosure with the PSS technique is safe and effective for left subclavian artery revascularization in Stanford B aortic dissection and can be another option for access closure during f-TEVAR.

Comparison of manual compression, Z-stitch, and suture-mediated vascular closure device techniques in dogs undergoing percutaneous transvenous intervention

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Manual compression has been standard of care for maintaining hemostasis after percutaneous endovascular intervention, but can be time-consuming and associated with vascular complications. Alternative closure methods include the figure-of-eight suture (Z-stitch) and vascular closure device (VCD) techniques. We hypothesized that compared to manual compression, Z-stitch and VCD would significantly reduce time-to-hemostasis after transvenous access, and the proportion of dogs with vascular patency would not differ significantly among treatments.

ANIMALS

Forty-six client-owned dogs undergoing percutaneous transvenous interventional procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Dogs with vessel diameter <5 mm were randomized to undergo manual compression or Z-stitch, while those with vessel diameter ≥5 mm were randomized to undergo manual compression, Z-stitch, or VCD. Time-to-hemostasis, bleeding scores, presence of vascular patency one day and two to three months post-procedure, and complications were recorded. Data are presented as median (95% confidence interval).

RESULTS

In all 46 dogs, the right external jugular vein was used. Time-to-hemostasis was significantly shorter in the Z-stitch (2.1 [1.8-2.9] minutes) compared to VCD (8.6 [6.1-11.8] minutes; P<0.001) and manual compression (10.0 [10.0-20.0] minutes; P<0.001) groups. Time-to-hemostasis was significantly shorter in the VCD vs. manual compression (P=0.027) group. Bleeding scores were significantly greater at 5 and 10 min (P<0.001 and 0.013, respectively) in manual compression, compared to Z-stitch group. There was no difference in the proportion of dogs with vascular patency between groups (P=0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Z-stitch and VCD are effective venous hemostasis methods after percutaneous transvenous intervention, with Z-stitch providing the most rapid time-to-hemostasis. Both Z-stitch and VCD techniques have low complication rates and effectively maintain vascular patency.

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.

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.

The Use of Vascular Closure Devices for Brachial Artery Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To estimate the rates of technical success and adverse events of vascular closure devices (VCDs) in the brachial artery and compare the rates of adverse events with manual compression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for observational studies examining VCDs in the brachial artery. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects for the following outcomes: (a) technical success, (b) hematoma at the access site, (c) pseudoaneurysm, (d) local neurological adverse events, and (e) total number of adverse events. A pairwise meta-analysis compared VCD with manual compression for the outcomes of hematoma and the total number of adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 1,761 eligible records, 16 studies including 510 access sites were included. Primary procedures performed were peripheral arterial disease interventions, percutaneous coronary intervention, and endovascular thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. The technical success rate was 93% (95% CI, 87%-96%; I² = 47%). Data on the following adverse events were obtained via meta-analysis: (a) hematoma, 9% (5%-15%; I² = 54%); (b) stenosis or occlusion at access site, 3% (1%-14%; I² = 51%); (c) infection, 0% (0%-5%; I² = 0%); (d) pseudoaneurysm, 4% (1%-13%; I² = 61%); (e) local neurological adverse events, 5% (2%-13%; I² = 54%); and (f) total number of adverse events, 15% (10%-22%; I² = 51%). Angio-Seal success rate was 96% (93%-98%; I² = 0%), whereas the ExoSeal success rate was 93% (69%-99%; I² = 61%). When comparing VCD and manual compression, there was no difference in hematoma formation (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.35-1.63; I² = 0%; P = .47) or the total number of adverse events (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.35-1.58; I² = 76%; P = .45).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being off-label, studies suggest that VCDs in the brachial artery have a high technical success rate. There was no significant difference in adverse events between VCDs and manual compression in the brachial artery.

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.

Transbrachial Access Site Complications in Endovascular Interventions: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The transfemoral approach (TFA) or transradial approach (TRA) serves as the primary technique for most endovascular cases; however, the transbrachial (TBA) route is an alternative access site used when TFA and TRA are contraindicated. Although TBA has advantages over TRA, such as the ability to accommodate large guide catheters and devices, there is some apprehension in implementing TBA due to perceived access site complication rates. This article aims to glean the rate of access site complication from current literature.

Relevant studies were identified using the following search terms: ((access site complications) AND ((endovascular AND brachial) OR (percutaneous brachial access) OR (brachial))) OR (endovascular AND (percutaneous brachial access)); endovascular + brachial artery; endovascular + brachial artery + access site; and endovascular + brachial artery + access site complications. Articles published after 2008 addressing major complication rates from percutaneous TBA interventions were included.

Fifteen studies out of 992 total articles met the inclusion criteria. The major access site complication rate was 75/1,424 (5.27%). Patients who underwent hemostasis with a vascular closure device (VCD) had a major complication rate of 13/309 (4.21%) compared to a major complication rate of 65/1122 (5.79%) for patients who underwent hemostasis with manual compression (MC).

The major access site complication rate associated with TBA was 5.27%, which is relatively high compared to the complication rate in TFA or TRA. More prospective trials are needed to fully understand the access site complication rate in TBA interventions.

Percutaneous Axillary Artery Access for Peripheral and Complex Endovascular Interventions: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Benefits

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the safety, efficacy, and applicability of percutaneous axillary artery (pAxA) access in patients requiring upper extremity large sheath access during complex aortic, cardiac, and peripheral endovascular procedures. We also take this opportunity to address the potential cost-benefits offered by pAxA access compared to open upper extremity access.

METHODS

A total of 26 consecutive patients, between June 2018 and October 2020, underwent endovascular intervention, requiring upper extremity access (UEA). Ultrasound-guided, percutaneous access of the axillary artery was used in all 26 patients with off-label use of pre-close technique with Perclose ProGlide closure devices. Access sites accommodated sheath sizes that ranged from 6 to 14 French (F). End points were technical success and access site-related complications including isolated neuropathies, hematoma, distal embolization, access-site thrombosis, and post-operative bleeding requiring secondary interventions. Technical success was defined as successful arterial closure intraoperatively with no evidence of stenosis, occlusion, or persistent bleeding, requiring additional intervention.

RESULTS

Of the 26 patients requiring pAxA access, 15 underwent complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs (EVAR) with branched, fenestrated, snorkel, or parallel endografts, 6 underwent peripheral vascular interventions, and 5 underwent cardiac interventions. Fifty-three percent accommodated sheath sizes of 12F or higher. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases with no major perioperative access complications requiring additional open or endovascular procedures. In our series, we had one post-operative mortality secondary to myocardial infarction in a patient with significant coronary artery disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data again demonstrated the proposed safety and efficacy attributable to pAxA access, while extending its application to wide spectrum of endovascular interventions which included peripheral or coronary vascular in addition to complex EVAR.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Polymer Versus Suture-Based Vascular Closure Devices for Arterial Closure Following Lower-Limb Arterial Endovascular Revascularization

PURPOSES

The primary objective of this study (STEP trial) was to compare the efficacy of the polymer-based FemoSeal® vascular closure device (VCD) and the suture-based ProGlide® VCD in achieving hemostasis at the femoral access site after lower-limb arterial endovascular revascularization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

STEP was a multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients undergoing lower-limb arterial endovascular revascularization. The primary endpoint was technical success 5 h after the VCD intervention, defined as achievement of hemostasis without the need for a follow-up intervention at the access site and without a 2-g/dL drop in hemoglobin.

RESULTS

Between December 2017 and April 2019, 113 patients were assigned to the FemoSeal® group (FS) and 117 to the ProGlide® group (PG). VCD interventions were technically successful for 90 FS patients (80%) and 58 PG patients (50%) (odds ratio, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.22 to 7.14; p < 0.0001). This difference in success rates between FS and PG is partly explained by more frequent recourse to manual compression (FS: n = 19; PG: n = 45) and an additional VCD (FS: n = 0; PG: n = 23) in the latter group. After 5 h, 87% of FS patients and 69% of PG patients resumed ambulation (odds ratio: 3.07; 95% CI: 1.93 to 6.15; p = 0.0016).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing lower-limb arterial endovascular revascularization, FemoSeal® was superior to ProGlide® in terms of technical success.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Step trial was registered on http://ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03192033).

Safety and efficacy of the transbrachial approach for endovascular thrombectomy in patients with acute large vessel occlusion stroke

BACKGROUND

The transbrachial approach (TBA) is an alternative method to the transfemoral approach (TFA). We herein aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TBA for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in patients with acute large vessel occlusion stroke.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 297 patients who had undergone EVT from January 2015 to July 2019. Eighteen patients who had undergone 19 procedures were included. Indications for arterial access, devices, recanalization rates, complication rates, and clinical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 15 and 4 cases of anterior and posterior circulation stroke, respectively. The mean patient age was 80.1 years. Eight patients were male. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 18. The total procedure duration tended to be longer when the TBA was used after failure of the TFA (n = 6, 32%, median: 60.5 min) than when the TBA was used as the first treatment approach (n = 13, 68%, median: 22 min). Optimal recanalization (a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b or 3) was achieved for 15 procedures. Local complications were observed in two cases: one with brachial artery pseudoaneurysm and another with brachial artery occlusion. Three patients with anterior circulation stroke exhibited good clinical outcomes (modified Rankin score ≤ 2) at 90 days. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in one patient. Mortality was noted in four patients.

CONCLUSION

The TBA for EVT is a suitable alternative when adoption of the TFA is difficult or impossible.