Multicentre International Registry of Open Surgical Versus Percutaneous Upper Extremity Access During Endovascular Aortic Procedures

Objective: To investigate access failure (AF) and stroke rates of aortic procedures performed with upper extremity access (UEA), and compare results of open surgical vs. percutaneous UEA techniques with closure devices. Methods: A physician initiated, multicentre, ambispective, observational registry (SUPERAXA - NCT04589962) was carried out of patients undergoing aortic procedures requiring UEA, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement, aortic arch, and thoraco-abdominal aortic endovascular repair, pararenal parallel grafts, renovisceral and iliac vessel repair. Only vascular procedures performed with an open surgical or percutaneous (with a suture mediated vessel closure device) UEA were analysed. Risk factors and endpoints were classified according to the Society for Vascular Surgery and VARC-3 (Valve Academic Research Consortium) reporting standards. A logistic regression model was used to identify AF and stroke risk predictors, and propensity matching was employed to compare the UEA closure techniques. Results: Sixteen centres registered 1 098 patients (806 men [73.4%]; median age 74 years, interquartile range 69 – 79 years) undergoing vascular procedures using open surgical (76%) or percutaneous (24%) UEA. Overall AF and stroke rates were 6.8% and 3.0%, respectively. Independent predictors of AF by multivariable analysis included pacemaker ipsilateral to the access (odds ratio [OR] 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 – 12.1; p =.026), branched and fenestrated procedure (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.2 – 9.6; p =.019) and introducer internal diameter ≥ 14 F (OR 6.6, 95% CI 2.1 – 20.7; p =.001). Stroke was associated with female sex (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 – 9.0; p =.013), vessel diameter > 7 mm (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 – 13.8; p =.037), and aortic arch procedure (OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.7 – 31.1; p =.007). After 1:1 propensity matching, there was no difference between open surgical and percutaneous cohorts. However, a statistically significantly higher number of adjunctive endovascular procedures was recorded in the percutaneous cohort (p <.001). Conclusion: AF and stroke rates during complex aortic procedures employing UEA are non-negligible. Therefore, selective use of UEA is warranted. Percutaneous access with vessel closure devices is associated with similar complication rates, but more adjunctive endovascular procedures are required to avoid surgical exposure

Percutaneous transAXillary access for endovascular aortic procedures in the multicenter international PAXA registry

Background: The aim of the study was to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a suture-mediated vascular closure device to perform hemostasis after an axillary artery access during endovascular procedures on the aortic valve, the aorta and its side branches. Methods: A physician-initiated, international, multicenter, retrospective registry was designed to evaluate the success rate (VARC-2 reporting standards) of percutaneous transaxillary access closure with a suture-mediated closure device. Secondary end points were minor access vascular complications, transient peripheral nerve injury, stroke, and influence on periprocedural outcomes of puncture technique. Results: Three hundred thirty-one patients (median age, 76 years; 69.2% males) in 11 centers received a percutaneous transaxillary access during endovascular cardiac (n = 166) or vascular (n = 165) procedures. The closure success rate was 84.6%, with 5 open conversions (1.5%), 45 adjunctive endovascular procedures (13.6%), and 1 nerve injury (0.3%). Secondary closure success was obtained in 325 patients (98%) after 7 bare stenting, 37 covered stenting, and 1 thrombin injection. Introducer sheaths 16F or larger (odds ratio, 3.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-11.42) and balloon-assisted hemostasis (odds ratio, 4.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-15.68) were associated with closure failure. A threshold of five percutaneous axillary accesses was associated with decreased rates of open conversion, but not with increased primary closure success. Primary closure success was 90.3% in the 175 patients with sheaths smaller than 16F, performed after the first 5 procedures in each center. Temporary nerve injury and stroke were observed in 2% and 4% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: Percutaneous transaxillary aortic procedures, in selected patients, can be performed with low rates of open conversion. The need for additional endovascular bailout procedures is not negligible when introducers sheaths 16F or larger are required