Comparison of different access sites (radial, brachial and femoral) for subclavian artery intervention. (25th November 2020) - Ruzsa, Z
Abstract: Introduction: The primary purpose of this multicenter prospective register was to evaluate the success and complication rate of different access sites for subclavian artery intervention. Secondary purpose was to investigate the safety of the distal radial artery access for subclavian artery intervention. Methods: The clinical and angiographic data of 223 consecutive patients with symptomatic subclavian and anonym artery stenosis treated via transradial (TR), transbrachial (TB) and transfemoral (TF) access between 2015 and 2019 were evaluated in a multicenter registry. The exclusion criteria of the intervention was the acute proximal subclavian artery thrombosis. Primary endpoint: angiographic outcome of the subclavian and anonym artery intervention, rate of major and minor access site complications. Secondary endpoints: procedural complications, consumption of the angioplasty equipment, cross over rate to another puncture site and hospitalization in days. Results: The procedure was successful in 182/184 in TR, in 5/5 in TB and in 32/32 patients in TF group. The cross over rate in the TR, TB and TF group was 0%. Chronic total occlusion recanalization was successful in 75/77 cases in TR, and 15/15 cases in the TF group. Contrast consumption was 152±106 ml in TR, 99±22.5 ml in TB and 152±95 in TF group, respectively (p=ns). Cummulativ dose was 602±1205 mGray in RA, 455±210 mGray in BA and 1089±1674 mGray in FA group (p<0.05). Procedural complications occurred in 1/184 (0.5%) case in RA group, in 0 case (0%) in BA group and in 4/32 cases (12.5%) in the FA group (p<0.05). Major access site complication were detected in 3 patients (1.6%) in RA, in 1 patient in BA (20%) and in 1 patient in FA group (3.1%) (p<0.05). Minor access site complication were encountered in 9 patients in the RA (4.8%), in 1 patient in the BA (20%) and in 8 patients in the FA group (25%) (p<0.05). Distal radial access was used in 29 cases and proximal radial access in 155 patients. The rate of radial artery occlusion in proximal and distal radial group was 5.1% and 0% (p<0.05). Conclusions: Subclavian artery intervention can be safely and effectively performed using radial access with acceptable morbidity and high technical success. Femoral and brachial access is associated with more access site complications than radial artery access. Distal radial access is associated with less radial artery occlusion than proximal radial artery access. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding source: None