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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

superficial femoral artery endovascular treatment/therapy peripheral artery disease brachial access radial access

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Norgren

Hiatt

Dormandy

, et al. Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II). J Vasc Surg. 2007;45(suppl S):S5–S67.

Schneider

PA.

Evolution and current use of technology for superficial femoral and popliteal artery interventions for claudication. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:916–923.

Olin

White

Armstrong

, et al. Peripheral artery disease: evolving role of exercise, medical therapy, and endovascular options. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:1338–1357.

Society for Vascular Surgery Lower Extremity Guidelines Writing Group, Conte

Pomposelli

, et al. Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines for atherosclerotic occlusive disease of the lower extremities: management of asymptomatic disease and claudication. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61(3 suppl):2S–41S.

Gerhard-Herman

Gornik

Barrett

, et al. 2016 AHA/ACC guideline on the management of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:e71–e126.

Ruzsa

Bellavics

Nemes

, et al. Combined transradial and transpedal approach for femoral artery interventions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1062–1071.

Franz

Tanga

Herrmann

JW.

Treatment of peripheral arterial disease via percutaneous brachial artery access. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:461–465.

Sheth

Ganguli

Closure of alternative vascular sites, including axillary, brachial, popliteal, and surgical grafts. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;18:113–121.

Dumantepe

Retrograde popliteal access to percutaneous peripheral intervention for chronic total occlusion of superficial femoral arteries. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2017;51:240–246.

10.

Meertens

Loh

SEK

, et al. Transradial approach for aortoiliac and femoropopliteal interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2018;25:599–607.

11.

Taha

Abou Ali

Al-Khoury

, et al. Outcomes of infrageniculate retrograde versus transfemoral access for endovascular intervention for chronic lower extremity ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68:1088–1095.

12.

Ruzsa

Wojtasik-Bakalarz

Nyerges

, et al. Long-term follow-up after retrograde recanalization of superficial femoral artery chronic total occlusion. J Invasive Cardiol. 2017;29:336–339.

13.

Bosiers

Deloose

Callaert

Anterograde or retrograde arterial access for diabetic limb revascularization. Semin Vasc Surg. 2018;31:76–80.

14.

Oren

Turgeman

Transradial versus transfemoral approach in peripheral arterial interventions. Int J Angiol. 2016;25:148–152.

15.

Komshian

Cheng

Farber

, et al. Retrograde popliteal access to treat femoropopliteal artery occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68:161–167.

16.

Kuserli

Kavala

AA.

Retrograde popliteal access and balloon dilatation of chronic total occlusion of superficial femoral arteries. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;64:253–262.

17.

Alvarez-Tostado

Moise

Bena

, et al. The brachial artery: a critical access for endovascular procedures. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49:378–385.

18.

Kumar

Jones

Kollmeyer

, et al. Radial artery access for peripheral endovascular procedures. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:820–825.

19.

Zhang

Huang

, et al. Retrograde popliteal approach for challenging occlusions of the femoral-popliteal arteries. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:84–89.

20.

Fallon

Goodney

Stone

, et al. Outcomes of lower extremity revascularization among the hemodialysis-dependent. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:1183–1191.e1.

21.

Smith

Matthews

Moxon

, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors for and incidence of 30-day readmission after revascularization for peripheral artery disease. J Vasc Surg. 2019;70:996–1006.e7.

22.

Okuno

Iida

Shiraki

, et al. Impact of calcification on clinical outcomes after endovascular therapy for superficial femoral artery disease: assessment using the Peripheral Artery Calcification Scoring System. J Endovasc Ther. 2016;23:731–737.

23.

Dias-Neto

Matschuck

Bausback

, et al. Endovascular treatment of severely calcified femoropopliteal lesions using the “pave-and-crack” technique: technical description and 12-month results. J Endovasc Ther. 2018;25:334–342.

24.

Baril

Chaer

Rhee

, et al. Endovascular interventions for TASC II D femoropopliteal lesions. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51:1406–1412.

25.

Kret

Dalman

Kalish

, et al. Arterial cutdown reduces complications after brachial access for peripheral vascular intervention. J Vasc Surg. 2016;64:149–154.

26.

Madden

Calligaro

Zheng

, et al. Outcomes of brachial artery access for endovascular interventions. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;56:81–86.

27.

Ortiz

Jahangir

Singh

, et al. Access site complications after peripheral vascular interventions: incidence, predictors, and outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:821–828.