Literature DB >> 19028057

The brachial artery: a critical access for endovascular procedures.

Javier A Alvarez-Tostado1, Mireille A Moise, James F Bena, Mircea L Pavkov, Roy K Greenberg, Daniel G Clair, Vikram S Kashyap.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The brachial artery is often used for coronary angiography. However, data on brachial access for aortic and peripheral interventions are limited. This study evaluated our experience with brachial artery catheterization for diagnostic arteriography and endovascular interventions.
METHODS: Between August 2004 and August 2005, 2026 endovascular procedures were performed. Of these, 323 cases (16%) in 289 patients required brachial artery access, forming the basis for this study. Patients who underwent multiple interventions, but with a single access (ie, thrombolysis), were considered a single case. Demographic and clinical data were recorded in a database and analyzed using logistic regression analyses with generalized estimating equations and the Fisher exact test for nominal variables.
RESULTS: The mean age of all patients was 66.4 years, with 57% men. Brachial access was used for diagnostic purposes in 27% and for interventions including angioplasty, stenting, and thrombolysis in 73%. The use of brachial access was considered obligatory in 40%, adjunctive in 19% (ie, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic and thoracic aortic aneurysms) and preferential to femoral access in 41%. In 91% of patients, the brachial arteries were accessed percutaneously, and 9% underwent surgical cutdown for access. In patients whose brachial artery was approached percutaneously, access was achieved in all but one (99.6% technical success rate). Hemostasis after catheterization was achieved by manual compression in 89%. Operative mortality rate was 6.2% and not related to brachial artery access. Brachial access site-related complications occurred in 21 patients (6.5%). Thirteen of these 21 patients (62%) required a surgical correction, mostly for brachial artery thrombosis or pseudoaneurysm. Patients with complications were more commonly women (odds ratio [OR], 4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-13.26; P = .003) and had a long interventional sheath (OR, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.53-29.07; P = .012). The risk of a brachial artery complication was not associated with thrombolysis, procedure type, vascular territory treated, or the use of heparin. No upper extremity limb or finger loss occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: Brachial artery access is necessary for complex endovascular procedures and can be achieved in most patients safely. Postprocedural vigilance is warranted because most patients with complications will require operative correction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19028057     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.09.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  23 in total

1.  Contralateral approach to iliac artery recanalization with kissing nitinol stents present in the aortic bifurcation.

Authors:  George Joseph; Amit Hooda; Viji Samuel Thomson
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2015-10-21

Review 2.  Complications of endovascular aneurysm repair of the thoracic and abdominal aorta: evaluation and management.

Authors:  Dania Daye; T Gregory Walker
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2018-04

Review 3.  Strategies for managing aortoiliac occlusions: access, treatment and outcomes.

Authors:  Daniel G Clair; Jocelyn M Beach
Journal:  Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther       Date:  2015-05

4.  Patient Preference for Transradial Access over Transfemoral Access for Cerebrovascular Procedures.

Authors:  Sudhakar R Satti; Ansar Z Vance; Sohil N Golwala; Tim Eden
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Neurol       Date:  2017-06

Review 5.  Percutaneous access planning, techniques and considerations for endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).

Authors:  Geogy Vatakencherry; Chris Molloy; Neil Sheth; Millie Liao; Cuong Ken Lam
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2018-04

6.  Coexistence of variant pronator teres muscle and variant course of the neurovascular structures in the arm: clinical significance.

Authors:  Suresh Narayanan; Priyadharshini Nattalam Adikesavan
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 1.246

7.  Transradial versus transfemoral access for acute stroke endovascular thrombectomy: a 4-year experience in a high-volume center.

Authors:  Roger Barranco-Pons; Isabel Rodríguez Caamaño; Anna Nuñez Guillen; Oscar Sabino Chirife; Helena Quesada; Pere Cardona
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 2.804

8.  Transradial access for renal artery intervention.

Authors:  Zoltán Ruzsa; Károly Tóth; Zoltán Jambrik; Nándor Kovács; Sándor Nardai; Balázs Nemes; Kálmán Hüttl; Béla Merkely
Journal:  Interv Med Appl Sci       Date:  2014-09-18

9.  Transulnar versus transradial approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty: Considering their complications.

Authors:  Farshad Roghani-Dehkordi; Rooholah Mansouri; Alireza Khosravi; Behzad Mahaki; Mehdi Akbarzadeh; Mohammad Kermani-Alghoraishi
Journal:  ARYA Atheroscler       Date:  2018-05

10.  Comparison of Access Site-Related Complications and Quality of Life in Patients after Invasive Cardiology Procedures According to the Use of Radial, Femoral, or Brachial Approach.

Authors:  Jan Roczniak; Wojciech Koziołek; Marcin Piechocki; Tomasz Tokarek; Andrzej Surdacki; Stanisław Bartuś; Michał Chyrchel
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.