Superficial femoral artery access for endovascular aortic repair

Abstract

ObjectiveThe majority of endovascular aneurysm repair procedures are performed through the common femoral artery (CFA). Arterial access is gained by surgical cutdown or percutaneous approach. The surgical approach has a relatively high local complication rate. We describe superficial femoral artery (SFA) access as an alternative to CFA exposure to minimize wound complications and to facilitate swift recovery. MethodsA single-center, retrospective study of patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair between 2014 and 2016 was performed; 195 patients undergoing 215 procedures were included, 114 with CFA cutdown, 87 with SFA cutdown, and 14 with combined SFA and CFA procedures. Epidemiologic parameters, risk factors, procedural details, operative and postoperative complications, and time to discharge were assessed. Independent samples two-sided t-test and χ2 test were used to compare the SFA and CFA. A P value < .05 was considered statistically significant. A multivariate adjusted model confirmed the results. The proximal SFA is assessed by computed tomography angiography for patency and suitability. The minimal SFA diameter of 6 mm was determined for considering SFA access. Through a longitudinal incision at the upper thigh, the SFA is exposed and catheterized. Devices are inserted sheathless and replaced by small-diameter sheaths (14F-16F). Patients undergo peripheral vascular examination before and after the procedure. ResultsAge, sex, and risk factor distribution were similar in both groups. Aneurysm size and device diameters were also similar. There were 12.1% of cases that were not suitable for the SFA approach. Access-related bleeding (0.7% SFA, 7% CFA; P = .004), ischemia (0.7% SFA, 7.6% CFA; P = .002), and venous injury (0% SFA, 1.3% CFA; P = .102) were minimized with SFA exposure. This led to almost 50% decrease in patients requiring additional arterial reconstruction during the procedure (6.5% SFA, 12.8% CFA; P = .059). SFA cutdown was also associated with lower wound complication rate (infection, seroma, and hematoma; 13.2% SFA, 34.9% CFA; P = .000). Neuropathy (mostly sensory) was higher with SFA exposure (13.8% SFA, 5.2% CFA; P = .008). The patients' recovery was faster in the SFA group, resulting in 14.3% reduction of hospital stay after the procedure (P = .005). Secondary access-related procedures were also lower in the SFA group (2.2% SFA, 8.7% CFA; P = .045). ConclusionsThe SFA approach is easier to perform and has a lower complication rate compared with the CFA approach. During the procedure, there is no dissection or damage to arterial branches, especially to the deep femoral artery. The SFA approach has a low complication rate and can be an alternative to percutaneous access when it is unsuitable.