Purpose: To evaluate the use of a brachial artery access for endovascular treatment of iliac artery disease. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of 201 patients (mean age 73 years; 147 men) treated via a brachial artery access for iliac artery stenosis. The majority (n=141, 70%) presented with lifestyle-limiting claudication (Rutherford category 3), whereas the incidence of critical limb ischemia (Rutherford categories 4–6) was 30% (n=70). Diagnostic angiography revealed a TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II (TASC) C/D lesion in 114 (57%) patients. The primary outcome was technical success achieved exclusively with a brachial artery access. Secondary outcomes were secondary technical success (adjunctive transfemoral access), access site complications, and stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA). Results: In 17 (8%) patients, lesion crossing was unsuccessful, while an adjunctive transfemoral approach was necessary to restore iliac vessel patency in 23 (11%) cases. Thus, the primary and secondary technical success rates were 81% and 92%, respectively. Local hematomas (9, 4%) dominated the access site complications, followed by pseudoaneurysms (8, 4%), late brachial artery bleeding (4, 2%), brachial artery occlusion (2, 1%), and puncture site infection (2, 1%). No transient or permanent median nerve dysfunction was observed. The stroke/TIA rate was 2% (n=4). A single patient died due to acute coronary syndrome (0.5% mortality). TASC II class (p=0.58), sex (p=0.66), and target vessel (p>0.3 for all locations) had no effect on technical success. Female gender unfavorably influenced the incidence of access site complications (hazard ratio 6.7, 95% confidence interval 2.7 to 15, p<0.001), but sheath size did not (p=0.22). Conclusion: Brachial artery access enables endovascular treatment of iliac artery disease in the majority of patients, although an adjunctive transfemoral access may be required. However, the high incidences of access site complications and cerebral events remain a significant limitation of the transbrachial approach.
RatibKMamasMAAndersonSGBritish Cardiovascular Intervention Society and the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research. Access site practice and procedural outcomes in relation to clinical presentation in 439,947 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the United Kingdom. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(1 Pt A):20–39.
2.
ValgimigliMGagnorACalabróPRadial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2465–2476.
3.
KwokCSKontopantelisEKunadianV; British Cardiovascular Intervention Society; National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research. Effect of access site, gender, and indication on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS). Am Heart J. 2015;170:164–172.e1-5.
4.
Alvarez-TostadoJAMoiseMABenaJFThe brachial artery: a critical access for endovascular procedures. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49:378–385.
5.
TreitlKMKönigCReiserMFComplications of transbrachial arterial access for peripheral endovascular interventions. J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22:63–70.
6.
YuanLBaoJZhaoZTransbrachial and femoral artery approach endovascular therapy for flush infrarenal aortic occlusion. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;48:46–52.
7.
MirzaAKSteermanSNAhanchiSAnalysis of vascular closure devices after transbrachial artery access. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2014;48:466–469.
8.
LevilleCDKashyapVSClairDGEndovascular management of iliac artery occlusions: extending treatment to TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus class C and D patients. J Vasc Surg. 2006;43:32–39.
9.
KnowlesMNationDATimaranDEUpper extremity access for fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair is not associated with increased morbidity. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:80–87.
10.
MillonADella SchiavaNBrizziVThe antegrade approach using transbrachial access improves technical success rate of endovascular recanalization of TASC C-D aortoiliac occlusion in case of failed femoral access. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29:1346–1352.
11.
KashyapVSPavkovMLBenaJFThe management of severe aortoiliac occlusive disease: endovascular therapy rivals open reconstructionJ Vasc Surg. 2008;48:1451–1457.
12.
JongkindVAkkersdijkGJYeungKKA systematic review of endovascular treatment of extensive aortoiliac occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52:1376–1383.
13.
NarinsC. Access strategies for peripheral arterial intervention. Cardiol J. 2009;16:88–97.
14.
BascheSEgerCAschenbachR. The brachial artery as approach for catheter interventions—indications, results, complications. Vasa. 2004;33:235–238.
15.
LupattelliTClerissiJClericiGThe efficacy and safety of closure of brachial access using the AngioSeal closure device: experience with 161 interventions in diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48:772–778.
16.
ArmstrongPHanDBaxterJComplication rates of percutaneous brachial artery access in peripheral vascular angiography. Ann Vasc Surg. 2003;17:107–110.
17.
HeenanSDGrubnicSBuckenhamTMTransbrachial arteriography: indications and complications. Clin Radiol. 1996;51:205–209.
18.
CorteseBTraniCLorenzoniRSafety and feasibility of iliac endovascular interventions with a radial approach. Results from a multicenter study coordinated by the Italian Radial Force. Int J Cardiol. 2014;175:280–284.
19.
KwokCSKontopantelisEMyintPStroke following percutaneous coronary intervention: type-specific incidence, outcomes and determinants seen by the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society 2007–12. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:1618–1628.
20.
HamonMLipieckiJCarriéDSilent cerebral infarcts after cardiac catheterization: a randomized comparison of radial and femoral approaches. Am Heart J. 2012;164:449–454.e1.
21.
RatibKMamasMRoutledgeHInfluence of access site choice on incidence of neurologic complications after percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2013;165:317–324.
22.
StavroulakisKBisdasTTorselloGEarly experience with the Entrust delivery system for stent treatment of the lower extremities’ arteries via transbrachial approach. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2014;55:483–488.
23.
SanghviKKurianDCoppolaJ. Transradial intervention of iliac and superficial femoral artery disease is feasible. J Interv Cardiol. 2008;21:385–387.
CorteseBPerettiETroisiNTransradial percutaneous iliac intervention, a feasible alternative to the transfemoral route. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2012;13:331–334.
26.
LorenzoniRLisiCCorciuATailored use of transradial access for above-the-knee angioplasty. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21:635–640.
27.
StellaPRKiemeneijFLaarmanGJIncidence and outcome of radial artery occlusion following transradial artery coronary angioplasty. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1997;40:156–158.
28.
KiemeneijFLaarmanGJOdekerkenDA randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by the radial, brachial and femoral approaches: the access study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:1269–1275.
