Vascular access is the initial, very important, step of endovascular procedures. Various access sites include the common femoral artery, brachial artery, radial artery, popliteal artery, and distal tibial vessels (pedal arteries). Successful arterial access requires advanced knowledge of anatomy, as well as proper training and experience. Today, vascular access should be obtained using real-time, ultrasound guidance to reduce access time, patient discomfort, and puncture-related complications including dissection, arteriovenous communication, and bleeding. Nevertheless, high-level evidence to support this recommendation in peripheral procedures is limited and level A data are mainly derived from randomized cardiac trials investigating only radial and femoral access. Vascular closure devices (VCDs) for femoral access can be broadly categorized as active closure devices, compression assist devices, and external/topical hemostasis devices. There is high-level evidence demonstrating that their use is related to less time for ambulation and increased patient satisfaction. However, available data failed to clearly demonstrate a benefit in complications compared to standard manual compression in peripheral endovascular arterial procedures, and thrombotic and infectious complications reported following VCD use remain an issue. Heterogeneity noted in the literature, caused by the vast variety of devices, access sites, sheath sizes, clinical scenarios, and procedures, poses difficulties in data analysis and future study design. As a result, an individualized VCD use is currently suggested for ≥ 5 Fr femoral artery access not only to reduce time to hemostasis and ambulation and to improve patient comfort, but also to reduce bleeding complications in cases of femoral access with increased bleeding risk, deranged coagulation, and large-bore access, though a high level of evidence to support this later recommendation is limited. KEY POINTS: US guidance is strongly recommended for femoral access and is mandatory to obtain more challenging access. The use of VCDs for femoral hemostasis is generally safe, effective, and currently supported by level I evidence. Proper training and correct VCD choice, based on the patient\'s individual characteristics, are imperative to optimize outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Limited knowledge exists regarding access site complication rates between trans-axillary and trans-brachial approaches with sheath sizes ≥6Fr. We retrospectively reviewed our institution experience with access site complications for percutaneous trans-axillary and trans-brachial arterial interventions using sheath sizes ranging from 6Fr to 10Fr.
METHODS: We examined 67 endovascular interventions performed over 18 months, restricted to sheath sizes of 6Fr to 10Fr. Procedures utilizing trans-brachial (41 cases) and trans-axillary (26 cases) approaches under sonographic guidance were included. Cases involving hemodialysis accesses and those requiring surgical cut-down were excluded. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of major access site complications (SIR grade-II/III) within 30 days, with data collected on hemostasis method, sheath size, and complications. Statistical analysis involved ANCOVA and Fisher\'s exact tests, with significance set at p < .05.
RESULTS: Successful percutaneous arterial access was achieved in all cases using either approach (trans-axillary or trans-brachial). Closure devices were employed in all axillary punctures and in 71% of brachial punctures. Major access site complications occurred in 7 out of 41 cases (17%) in the trans-brachial group and in 4 out of 26 cases (15%) in the trans-axillary group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between the two groups, regardless of access site or sheath size.
CONCLUSIONS: Trans-axillary access serves as a safe and effective upper limb access method for percutaneous endovascular procedures requiring sheath size of 7Fr or larger when compared to trans-brachial approach.

暂无摘要。

Background: Bifemoral arterial access is common in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), with a primary treatment access (TAVI access) and a secondary non-TAVI access. Pseudoaneurysm (PSA) is an important complication of femoral arterial puncture. Major vascular complications after TAVI are well described, but little is known about PSA. Patients and methods: A total of 2063 patients underwent transfemoral TAVI between January 2014 and January 2020. Vascular ultrasound of the common femoral artery was assessed before and after TAVI. We compared patient characteristics, periprocedural risk scores, procedural characteristics, and access site bleeding events according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) criteria, length of stay (LOS), and all-cause mortality at one year between patients with (46) and without (2017) PSA. Results: The incidence of PSA after TAVI was 2.2% (46/2063). All PSA were successfully treated with ultrasound-guided manual compression (UGMC) or thrombin injection (UGTI) without complications. Patients with PSA had lower platelet counts (210×1000/μl vs. 234×1000/μl; p<0.05), more heart failure symptoms on admission (91% vs. 25%; p<0.05), were more often treated with (N)OACs for atrial fibrillation (AF; 54% vs. 38%; p <0.05), and were less often treated with aspirin (35% vs. 51%; p<0.03). Multivariate analysis identified secondary access site (odds ratio [OR] 8.11; p<0.001) and (N)OAC therapy (OR 1.31; p = 0.037) as risk factors for PSA development. PSA is associated with VARC-3 type 1-3 access site bleeding and longer LOS (15.2 ± 11.3 d vs. 11.6 ± 8.9 d; p<0.01), but this did not affect one year mortality (17% vs. 14%; p = 0.53). Conclusions: Pseudoaneurysms are an important complication after TAVI and are associated with access site bleeding and prolonged hospital stay. (N)OAC therapy and secondary access are important risk factors. Pseudoaneurysms can be safely and effectively treated with thrombin injection and do not affect one-year mortality.

BACKGROUND: Access site complications remain common following atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation. Femoral vascular closure devices (VCDs) reduce time to hemostasis compared with manual compression, although large-scale data comparing clinical outcomes between the two approaches are lacking.
METHODS: Two cohorts of patients undergoing AF ablation were identified from 36 healthcare organizations using a global federated research network (TriNetX): those receiving a VCD for femoral hemostasis, and those not receiving a VCD. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) model based on baseline characteristics was used to create two comparable cohorts. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, vascular complications, bleeding events, and need for blood transfusion. Outcomes were assessed during early (within 7 days of ablation) and extended follow-up (within 8-30 days of ablation).
RESULTS: After PSM, 28 872 patients were included (14 436 in each cohort). The primary composite outcome occurred less frequently in the VCD cohort during early (1.97% vs. 2.60%, odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.88; p < .001) and extended follow-up (1.15% vs. 1.43%, OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98; p = .032). This was driven by a lower rate of vascular complications during early follow-up in the VCD cohort (0.83% vs. 1.26%, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.83; p < .001), and fewer bleeding events during early (0.90% vs. 1.23%, OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92; p = .007) and extended follow-up (0.36% vs. 0.59%, OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.86; p = .005).
CONCLUSIONS: Following AF ablation, femoral venous hemostasis with a VCD was associated with reduced complications compared with hemostasis without a VCD.

UNASSIGNED: This retrospective study aims to evaluate the safety, practicality, and efficacy of the independent retrograde popliteal approach for recanalization superficial femoral artery (SFA) occlusions when the bilateral common femoral artery approach is unavailable, such as after endovascular aneurysm repair or common iliac artery stenting.
UNASSIGNED: This treatment was considered for patients with contralateral iliac artery occlusion, severe iliac tortuosity, or those who had previously undergone endovascular aneurysm repair or common iliac stenting. Patients with SFA lesions extending into the P1-P2 segment of the popliteal artery or with calcification in the P3 segment were excluded. Angioplasty and stenting were conducted via the popliteal artery approach, with hemostasis at the puncture site achieved using an EXOSEAL vascular closure device. Patients were routinely followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months, and annually thereafter.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-eight consecutive patients with SFA occlusion who underwent endovascular treatment via the retrograde popliteal artery approach were included in this study. Retrograde puncture of the popliteal artery was successful in all cases. Six-French sheaths were utilized in all procedures. The EXOSEAL vascular closure device was successfully applied in all 48 cases. No instances of pseudoaneurysms, arteriovenous fistulas, major bleeding, or embolic complications were observed. The technical success rate for SFA recanalization was 100 %. All patients experienced clinical improvement. The ankle-brachial index significantly increased from an initial 0.33 ± 0.11 at admission to 0.81 ± 0.19 at discharge (P < 0.001). The mean follow-up period was 25.1 ± 11.7 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed primary patency rates of 82.5 % at 12 months and 71.8 % at 24 months. No patients required major amputation during the follow-up period.
UNASSIGNED: The endovascular treatment of SFA occlusions via the independent retrograde popliteal approach is a viable alternative, demonstrating a low incidence of puncture-related complications and a high success rate of recanalization.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: Puncture-site complications in interventional radiology sometimes cause severe conditions. Vascular closure devices play an important role in preventing puncture-site complications. Vascular closure devices are divided into 2 types, the directly suturing or clipping type (active approximators) and adherent sealant types (passive approximators). However, which types of vascular closure device are the safest and most effective for achieving hemostasis remains unclear. We analyzed the efficacy of each type of vascular closure device and risk factors for puncture-site complications.
METHODS: This study investigated 327 consecutive cases of neuroendovascular surgery using a transfemoral procedure during a 2-year study period. Passive approximators (Angioseal [St Jude Medical, Saint Paul, MN] and Exoseal [Cordis Corporation, Miami, FL]) were mainly used in the first half and active approximators (Perclose [Abbot Vascular, Santa Clara, CA]) in the second. We compared groups and estimated risk factors for puncture-site complications.
RESULTS: All procedures were successful. Comparing groups with and without puncture-site complications, use of passive approximators and ≥3 antithrombotic medications tended to be more frequent and distance from skin to femoral artery and body mass index tended to be lower in the group with complications without significance. The cutoff for femoral artery depth calculated from a receiver operating characteristic curve was 16.43 mm. Multivariate analysis revealed ≥3 antithrombotic medications (P = 0.002, OR 15.29, 95% CI 2.76-85.76) and passive approximator use in patients with femoral artery depth <16.43 mm (P < 0.001, OR 17.08, 95% CI 2.95-57.80) were significantly higher in the group with puncture-site complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Passive approximator use in patients with shallow femoral artery depth increases puncture-site complications in neuroendovascular treatment.

BACKGROUND: Differences in the efficacy and safety between the preclose and postclose suture-mediated vascular closure systems for femoral vein access have not been adequately studied.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these 2 suturing techniques in femoral vein access.
METHODS: Patients subjected to elective catheter ablation via the femoral vein using a sheath of 8- to 13-F inner diameter (n = 282) were randomized to the preclose or postclose groups for the single-suture technique using ProGlide/ProStyle (Abbott Vascular). Duplex ultrasound was performed on days 1 and 90 after the procedure to evaluate vascular complications. The primary efficacy endpoint was rebleeding requiring recompression, and the primary safety endpoint was any major complication occurring within 90 days. The secondary efficacy endpoints included time to hemostasis and time to ambulation, and the secondary safety endpoint was any minor complication occurring within 90 days.
RESULTS: The preclose group demonstrated a significantly lower rebleeding rate (5 of 141 [3.5%] vs 15 of 141 [10.6%]; P = 0.03) and shorter time to hemostasis (254.0 ± 120.4 seconds vs 299.8 ± 208.2 seconds; P = 0.02) compared with the postclose group. Five patients in each group were lost to follow-up at 90 days. Incidence of major complications were similar in both groups (1 of 136 [0.7%]; P = 1.00), whereas minor complications were observed in 18 of 136 (13.2%) and 21 of 136 (15.4%) patients in the preclose and postclose groups, respectively, without a significant difference (P = 0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: In femoral vein access using the single-suture technique with ProGlide/ProStyle, the preclose technique presented a higher hemostasis rate than the postclose technique, without compromising safety.

UNASSIGNED: An increasing number of interventional procedures require large-sheath technology (>12F) with a favorable outcome with endovascular rather than open surgical access. However, vascular complications are a limitation for the management of these patients. This trial aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of the Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device in obtaining hemostasis at the target limb access site following interventional procedures using 8F to 18F procedural sheaths.
UNASSIGNED: The Cross-Seal IDE trial (Investigational Device Exemption) was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter study in subjects undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheaths. The primary efficacy end point was time to hemostasis at the target limb access site. The primary safety end point was freedom from major complications of the target limb access site within 30 days post procedure.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 147 subjects were enrolled between August 9, 2019, and March 12, 2020. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed in 53.7% (79/147) and percutaneous endovascular abdominal/thoracic aortic aneurysm repair in 46.3% (68/147) of subjects. The mean sheath ID was 15.5±1.8 mm. The primary effectiveness end point of time to hemostasis was 0.4±1.4 minutes. An adjunctive intervention was required in 9.2% (13/142) of subjects, of which 2.1% (3/142) were surgical and 5.6% (8/142) endovascular. Technical success was achieved in 92.3% (131/142) of subjects. Freedom from major complications of the target limb access site was 94.3% (83/88).
UNASSIGNED: In selected patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular procedures utilizing 8F to 18F ID procedural sheath, Cross-Seal suture-mediated vascular closure device achieved favorable effectiveness and safety in the closure of the large-bore arteriotomy.
UNASSIGNED: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03756558.