Radial arterial access is a safe alternative to brachial artery and femoral artery access for endovascular lower extremity peripheral arterial disease

Abstract

ObjectiveRadial artery access is a well-described technique that has proven to be safe and efficacious in percutaneous cardiac intervention. This technique has been used with increased frequency in the treatment of lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (LE-PAD); however, the overall safety has not yet been well described in the vascular surgery literature. We sought to evaluate the safety of this technique compared with retrograde femoral artery access and brachial artery access (BA) in the treatment of PAD. MethodsThe Vascular Quality Initiative database was used to identify all patients who underwent single site percutaneous access (retrograde femoral access [FA], BA, radial access [RA]) for treatment of LE-PAD from September 2016 through September 2019. Patients who underwent multiple access sites for intervention were excluded. Primary outcome was significant access site complications (ASCs), defined as those requiring treatment (blood transfusion, interventional treatment, or surgical treatment). Minor ASCs were also reported. ResultsThe cohort comprised 61,203 patients (270 RA, 1210 BA, and 59,723 FA) with an average age of 68 years and who were 59.6% male. The RA and BA groups had higher rates of prior endarterectomy or bypass compared with the FA group (66.7% RA; 86.0% BA; 50.2% FA; P < .001). RA was more often used for single-segment treatments (82% vs 74% [P < .020] and more aortoiliac arterial segments (59.6% vs 21.0% [P < .001]). ASC occurred in 1329 patients (2.7%), including minor ASC (996 [1.6%]) and significant ASC (333 [0.54%]). Significant ASC were less common after FA and RA compared with BA (RA, 1 [0.37%]; FA, 307 [0.51%]; BA, 25 [2.1%]; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, BA was the strongest predictor of significant ASC (odds ratio, 2.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.73-4.36; P < .001). Significant ASC was no different after RA compared with FA (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-4.33; P = .616). Other factors independently associated with significant ASC were sex, age, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dialysis, and closure device use. ConclusionsRA as the primary access vessel for endovascular treatment of LE-PAD is safe when compared with other traditional access sites. When FA is not possible or desirable, the radial approach may provide suitable access to treatment with a better safety profile than BA.