ESR Essentials: arterial vascular access and closure devices-practice recommendations by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe.
Interventional radiology
Percutaneous endovascular treatment (vascular access)
Peripheral arterial procedures
Ultrasound guidance
Vascular closure devices
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Sep 2024
03 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
07
05
2024
accepted:
01
08
2024
revised:
31
07
2024
medline:
3
9
2024
pubmed:
3
9
2024
entrez:
3
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Vascular access is the initial, very important, step of endovascular procedures. Various access sites include the common femoral artery, brachial artery, radial artery, popliteal artery, and distal tibial vessels (pedal arteries). Successful arterial access requires advanced knowledge of anatomy, as well as proper training and experience. Today, vascular access should be obtained using real-time, ultrasound guidance to reduce access time, patient discomfort, and puncture-related complications including dissection, arteriovenous communication, and bleeding. Nevertheless, high-level evidence to support this recommendation in peripheral procedures is limited and level A data are mainly derived from randomized cardiac trials investigating only radial and femoral access. Vascular closure devices (VCDs) for femoral access can be broadly categorized as active closure devices, compression assist devices, and external/topical hemostasis devices. There is high-level evidence demonstrating that their use is related to less time for ambulation and increased patient satisfaction. However, available data failed to clearly demonstrate a benefit in complications compared to standard manual compression in peripheral endovascular arterial procedures, and thrombotic and infectious complications reported following VCD use remain an issue. Heterogeneity noted in the literature, caused by the vast variety of devices, access sites, sheath sizes, clinical scenarios, and procedures, poses difficulties in data analysis and future study design. As a result, an individualized VCD use is currently suggested for ≥ 5 Fr femoral artery access not only to reduce time to hemostasis and ambulation and to improve patient comfort, but also to reduce bleeding complications in cases of femoral access with increased bleeding risk, deranged coagulation, and large-bore access, though a high level of evidence to support this later recommendation is limited. KEY POINTS: US guidance is strongly recommended for femoral access and is mandatory to obtain more challenging access. The use of VCDs for femoral hemostasis is generally safe, effective, and currently supported by level I evidence. Proper training and correct VCD choice, based on the patient's individual characteristics, are imperative to optimize outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39225792
doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-11053-3
pii: 10.1007/s00330-024-11053-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
Références
Stone P, Campbell J, Thompson S, Walker J (2020) A prospective, randomized study comparing ultrasound versus fluoroscopic guided femoral arterial access in noncardiac vascular patients. J Vasc Surg 72:259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVS.2019.09.051
doi: 10.1016/J.JVS.2019.09.051
pubmed: 31980242
Chinikar M, Ahmadi A, Heidarzadeh A, Sadeghipour P (2014) Imaging or trusting on surface anatomy? A comparison between fluoroscopic guidance and anatomic landmarks for femoral artery access in diagnostic cardiac catheterization. A randomized control trial. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 29:18–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12928-013-0203-Y
doi: 10.1007/S12928-013-0203-Y
pubmed: 23959379
Sobolev M, Shiloh AL, Di Biase L, Slovut DP (2017) Ultrasound-guided cannulation of the femoral vein in electrophysiological procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace 19:850–855. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw113
doi: 10.1093/europace/euw113
pubmed: 27207813
Kalish J, Eslami M, Gillespie D et al (2015) Routine use of ultrasound guidance in femoral arterial access for peripheral vascular intervention decreases groin hematoma rates. J Vasc Surg 61:1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVS.2014.12.003
doi: 10.1016/J.JVS.2014.12.003
pubmed: 25595399
Li J, Cao Z, Zhang T et al (2023) Meta-analysis of ultrasound-guided and traditional femoral artery puncture. Front Cardiovasc Med 10:1161834. https://doi.org/10.3389/FCVM.2023.1161834
Jolly SS, Alrashidi S, D’Entremont MA et al (2022) Routine ultrasonography guidance for femoral vascular access for cardiac procedures: the UNIVERSAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol 7:1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMACARDIO.2022.3399
doi: 10.1001/JAMACARDIO.2022.3399
pubmed: 36116089
pmcid: 9483833
Spiliopoulos S, Katsanos K, Diamantopoulos A, Karnabatidis D, Siablis D (2011) Does ultrasound-guided lidocaine injection improve local anaesthesia before femoral artery catheterization? Clin Radiol 66:449–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2011.01.002
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2011.01.002
pubmed: 21353211
Kini A, Sharma SK (eds) (2021) Practical manual of interventional cardiology. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
Seto AH, Abu-Fadel MS, Sparling JM et al (2010) Real-time ultrasound guidance facilitates femoral arterial access and reduces vascular complications: FAUST (femoral arterial access with ultrasound trial). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 3:751–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCIN.2010.04.015
doi: 10.1016/J.JCIN.2010.04.015
pubmed: 20650437
Spiliopoulos S, Del Giudice C, Manzi M, Reppas L, Rodt T, Uberoi R (2021) CIRSE standards of practice on below-the-knee revascularisation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 44:1309–1322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-021-02891-5
doi: 10.1007/s00270-021-02891-5
pubmed: 34173044
Neumann C, Dorrfner R (2012) Conversion of a retrograde access to an antegrade access for bilateral femorocrural intervention in one session. Rofo 184:450–454. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1299096
doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1299096
pubmed: 22549552
Dariushnia SR, Gill AE, Martin LG et al (2014) Quality improvement guidelines for diagnostic arteriography. J Vasc Interv Radiol 25:1873–1881. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVIR.2014.07.020
doi: 10.1016/J.JVIR.2014.07.020
pubmed: 25241301
Sheth RA, Walker TG, Saad WE et al (2014) Quality improvement guidelines for vascular access and closure device use. J Vasc Interv Radiol 25:73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2013.08.011
doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.08.011
pubmed: 24209907
Patel R, Muller-Hulsbeck S, Morgan R, Uberoi R (2015) Vascular closure devices in interventional radiology practice. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 38:781–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-015-1116-1
doi: 10.1007/s00270-015-1116-1
pubmed: 25944150
Gerckens U, Cattelaens N, Lampe EG, Grube E (1999) Management of arterial puncture site after catheterization procedures: evaluating a suture-mediated closure device. Am J Cardiol 83:1658–1663. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00174-5
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00174-5
pubmed: 10392872
Baim DS, Knopf WD, Hinohara T et al (2000) Suture-mediated closure of the femoral access site after cardiac catheterization: results of the suture to ambulate aNd discharge (STAND I and STAND II) trials. Am J Cardiol 85:864–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00882-6
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00882-6
pubmed: 10758928
Fram DB, Giri S, Jamil G et al (2001) Suture closure of the femoral arteriotomy following invasive cardiac procedures: a detailed analysis of efficacy, complications, and the impact of early ambulation in 1200 consecutive, unselected cases. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 53:163–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/CCD.1143
doi: 10.1002/CCD.1143
pubmed: 11387599
Gouëffic Y, Picquet J, Schneider F et al (2021) A randomized trial comparing polymer versus suture-based vascular closure devices for arterial closure following lower-limb arterial endovascular revascularization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 44:1883–1892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-021-02940-z
doi: 10.1007/s00270-021-02940-z
pubmed: 34386892
Hermiller JB, Simonton C, Hinohara T et al (2006) The StarClose vascular closure system: interventional results from the CLIP study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 68:677–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/CCD.20922
doi: 10.1002/CCD.20922
pubmed: 17039508
Das R, Ahmed K, Athanasiou T, Morgan RA, Belli AM (2011) Arterial closure devices versus manual compression for femoral haemostasis in interventional radiological procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34:723–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00270-010-9981-0
doi: 10.1007/S00270-010-9981-0
pubmed: 21046386
Bhogal S, Waksman R (2022) Vascular closure: the ABC’s. Curr Cardiol Rep 24:355–364
doi: 10.1007/s11886-022-01654-z
pubmed: 35239082
Fortes MC, Jindal G, Polifka AJ, Aldrich EF, Simard JM, Gandhi D (2013) Low-angle vascular access for neurovascular procedures using the Arstasis AXERA access device. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24:693–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVIR.2013.01.012
doi: 10.1016/J.JVIR.2013.01.012
pubmed: 23489771
Doyle BJ, Godfrey MJ, Lennon RJ et al (2007) Initial experience with the Cardiva Boomerang vascular closure device in diagnostic catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 69:203–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/CCD.20937
doi: 10.1002/CCD.20937
pubmed: 17195965
Ierardi AM, Coppola A, Renzulli M et al (2023) Effectiveness and safety of different vascular closure devices: multicentre prospective observational study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 46:827–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-023-03463-5
doi: 10.1007/s00270-023-03463-5
pubmed: 37225968
Noori VJ, Eldrup-Jørgensen J (2018) A systematic review of vascular closure devices for femoral artery puncture sites. J Vasc Surg 68:887–899
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.05.019
pubmed: 30146036
Jiang J, Zou J, Ma H et al (2015) Network meta-analysis of randomized trials on the safety of vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis. Sci Rep 5:13761. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13761
Vierhout BP, Pol RA, El Moumni M, Zeebregts CJ (2017) Editor’s choice—arteriotomy closure devices in EVAR, TEVAR, and TAVR: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials and cohort studies. Eur J Vasc Endovas Surg 54:104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.03.015
doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.03.015
Spiliopoulos S, Karnabatidis D, Katsanos K et al (2016) Day-case treatment of peripheral arterial disease: results from a multi-center European study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 39:1684–1691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-016-1436-9
doi: 10.1007/s00270-016-1436-9
pubmed: 27481496
Sanguettoli F, Pavasini R, Nobile G et al (2024) “Safe femoral” artery approach in endovascular procedures: a systematic review of its safety and feasibility. Curr Probl Cardiol 49:102114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2023.102114
doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2023.102114
pubmed: 37802172