Percutaneous radial artery access for peripheral vascular interventions is a safe alternative for upper extremity access

• Published in: Journal of vascular surgery 2022-07, Vol.76 (1), p.174-179.e2
• Main Authors: Levin, Scott R., Carlson, Sarah J., Farber, Alik, Kalish, Jeffrey A., King, Elizabeth G., Martin, Michelle C., McPhee, James T., Patel, Virendra I., Rybin, Denis, Siracuse, Jeffrey J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Access site complication; Brachial access; Peripheral arterial disease; Peripheral vascular intervention; Radial access; Vascular surgery
• ISSN: 0741-5214; 1097-6809
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.11.076

Percutaneous radial artery access has been increasingly used for peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs). Our goal was to characterize the practice patterns and perioperative outcomes among patients treated using PVI performed via radial artery access. The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried from 2016 to 2020 for PVI performed via upper extremity access. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate the periprocedure outcomes of radial artery access cases. A separate sample of brachial artery access cases was used as a comparator. A total of 520 radial artery access cases were identified. The mean age was 69 ± 10 years, and 41.3% were women. Most procedures were performed in the hospital outpatient setting (71.7%). The sheath size was ≤5F for 10%, 6F for 78%, and 7F for 12%. Ultrasound-guided access and protamine were used in 68.3% and 17.3% of cases, respectively. The interventions were aortoiliac (55%), femoropopliteal (55%), and infrapopliteal (9%). Stenting and atherectomy were performed in 55% and 19% of cases, respectively, and more often with 7F sheaths. Access site complications were any hematoma (4.8%), including hematomas resulting in intervention (0.8%), pseudoaneurysms (1%), and access stenosis or occlusion (0.8%). On multivariable analysis, sheath size was not associated with access site complications. Percutaneous brachial artery access (n = 1135) compared with radial access was independently associated with more overall hematomas (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.81; P = .03). However, access type was not associated with hematomas resulting in intervention (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-6.72; P = .19). PVIs via radial artery access exhibited a low prevalence of postprocedural access site complications and were associated with fewer minor hematoma complications compared with interventions performed using brachial artery access. Radial artery access compared with brachial artery access should be the preferred technique for PVIs. [Display omitted]