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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

upper extremity access percutaneous closure device aortic aneurysm endovascular aneurysm repair thoracoabdominal aorta axillary artery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnett

Lee

Harms

, et al. Caliber and fitness of the axillary artery as a conduit for large-bore cardiovascular procedures. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91(1):150–156. doi:10.1002/ccd.27416.

Koziarz

Kennedy

Awad El-Karim

, et al. Vascular closure devices for axillary artery access: a systematic review and meta-analysis [published online ahead of print January 10, 2023]. J Endovasc Ther. doi:10.1177/15266028221147451.

Branzan

Steiner

Haensig

, et al. Percutaneous axillary artery access for endovascular treatment of complex thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;58(3):344–349. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.01.011.

Yufa

Mikael

Gautier

, et al. Percutaneous axillary artery access for peripheral and complex endovascular interventions: clinical outcomes and cost benefits. Ann Vasc Surg. 2022;83:176–183. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2021.11.027.

Mordhorst

Yan

Hoskins

, et al. Percutaneous proximal axillary artery versus femoral artery access for endovascular interventions. J Vasc Surg. 2022;76(1):165–173. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2022.03.031.

Bertoglio

Oderich

Melloni

, et al. Multicentre international registry of open surgical versus percutaneous upper extremity access during endovascular aortic procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2023;65(5):729–737. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.01.046.

Bertoglio

Conradi

Howard

DPJ

, et al. Percutaneous transaxillary access for endovascular aortic procedures in the multicenter international PAXA registry. J Vasc Surg. 2022;75(3):868–876.e3. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2021.08.089.

Bertoglio

Grandi

Melloni

, et al. Percutaneous AXillary Artery (PAXA) access at the first segment during fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020;59(6):929–938. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2020.01.027.

Meertens

de Haan

Schurink

GWH

, et al. A stopped pilot study of the ProGlide closure device after transbrachial endovascular interventions. J Endovasc Ther. 2019;26(5):727–731. doi:10.1177/1526602819862775.

10.

Mirza

Oderich

Sandri

, et al. Outcomes of upper extremity access during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2019;69(3):635–643. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2018.05.214.

11.

Fiorucci

Kölbel

Rohlffs

, et al. Right brachial access is safe for branched endovascular aneurysm repair in complex aortic disease. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66(2):360–366. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2016.12.114.

12.

Schäfer

Frerker

, et al. Direct percutaneous access technique for transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve implantation: “the Hamburg Sankt Georg approach.” JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(5):477–486. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2011.11.014.

13.

Bertoglio

Mascia

Cambiaghi

, et al. Percutaneous axillary artery access for fenestrated and branched thoracoabdominal endovascular repair. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68(1):12–23. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2017.09.053.

14.

Chaikof

Fillinger

Matsumura

, et al. Identifying and grading factors that modify the outcome of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35(5):1061–1066. doi:10.1067/mva.2002.123991.

15.

Fillinger

Greenberg

McKinsey

, et al. Reporting standards for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). J Vasc Surg. 2010;52(4):1022–1033, 1033.e15. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2010.07.008.

16.

Généreux

Piazza

Alu

, et al. Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: Updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(21):2717–2746. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.02.038.

17.

Honda

Yamawaki

Nakano

, et al. Cardiovascular revascularization medicine successfully managed access-site complication was not associated with worse outcome after percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation : up-to-date insights from the OCEAN-TAVI registry. Cardiovasc Revascularization Med. 2022;38:11–18. doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2021.08.004.

18.

Xie

Qin

, et al. Risk factors for access-related adverse events related to the preclose technique in thoracic endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2023;34(7):1135–1142. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2023.03.002.

19.

Meertens

Lemmens

Oderich

, et al. Cerebrovascular complications after upper extremity access for complex aortic interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020;43(2):186–195. doi:10.1007/s00270-019-02330-6.

20.

Chamseddin

Timaran

Oderich

, et al. Comparison of upper extremity and transfemoral access for fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2023;77:704–711. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2022.10.009.

21.

Makaloski

Tsilimparis

Rohlffs

, et al. Use of a steerable sheath for retrograde access to antegrade branches in branched stent-graft repair of complex aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther. 2018;25(5):566–570. doi:10.1177/1526602818794965.

22.

Gallitto

Faggioli

Bertoglio

, et al. Steerable sheath for cannulation and bridging stenting of challenging target visceral vessels in fenestrated and branched endografting. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;67:26–34. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2019.11.039.

23.

Schaefers

Murtaja

Oberhuber

Retrograde approach for antegrade inner branches in a precannulated off-the-shelf multibranch device. J Endovasc Ther. 2022;29(4):512–515. doi:10.1177/15266028211059452.

24.

Kapahnke

Bürger

Torsello

, et al. Cannulation of visceral vessels using a steerable sheath in fenestrated and branched aortic endografts. Ann Vasc Surg. 2022;85:305–313. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2022.02.022.

25.

D’Oria

Grandi

Pratesi

, et al. TOtal tRansfemoral branCHed endovasCular tHoracoabdominal aortic repair (TORCH2): short-term and mid-term outcomes from a national multicenter registry [published online ahead of print June 16, 2023]. J Endovasc Ther. doi:10.1177/15266028231179864.

26.

Bertoglio

Grandi

Carta

, et al. Comparison of anatomic feasibility of three different multibranched off-the-shelf stent-grafts designed for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2021;74(5):1472–1482. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2021.04.066.

27.

Zimmermann

Menges

Rancic

, et al. E-nside off-the-shelf inner branch stent graft: technical aspects of planning and implantation. J Endovasc Ther. 2022;29(2):167–174. doi:10.1177/15266028211047967.

28.

Mougin

Azogui

Guihaire

, et al. “First in Man” total percutaneous aortic arch repair with 3-inner-branch endografts: a report of two cases. Ann Surg. 2021;274(6):E652–E657. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000005167.

29.

Malekpour

Scott

Kirkwood

, et al. Sequential catheterization and progressive deployment of the Zenith® t-Branch^TM device for branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021;44(1):156–160. doi:10.1007/s00270-020-02654-8.

30.

Maurel

Delclaux

Sobocinski

, et al. Editor’s choice—the impact of early pelvic and lower limb reperfusion and attentive peri-operative management on the incidence of spinal cord ischemia during thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49(3):248–254. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.11.017.