Mantripragada Koushik, Abadi Kevin, Echeverry Nikolas, Shah Sumedh, Snelling Brian
Department of Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, USA.
Emergency Medicine, Memorial Healthcare, Pembroke Pines, USA.
Cureus. 2022 Jun 13;14(6):e25894. doi: 10.7759/cureus.25894. eCollection 2022 Jun.
The transfemoral approach (TFA) or transradial approach (TRA) serves as the primary technique for most endovascular cases; however, the transbrachial (TBA) route is an alternative access site used when TFA and TRA are contraindicated. Although TBA has advantages over TRA, such as the ability to accommodate large guide catheters and devices, there is some apprehension in implementing TBA due to perceived access site complication rates. This article aims to glean the rate of access site complication from current literature. Relevant studies were identified using the following search terms: ((access site complications) AND ((endovascular AND brachial) OR (percutaneous brachial access) OR (brachial))) OR (endovascular AND (percutaneous brachial access)); endovascular + brachial artery; endovascular + brachial artery + access site; and endovascular + brachial artery + access site complications. Articles published after 2008 addressing major complication rates from percutaneous TBA interventions were included. Fifteen studies out of 992 total articles met the inclusion criteria. The major access site complication rate was 75/1,424 (5.27%). Patients who underwent hemostasis with a vascular closure device (VCD) had a major complication rate of 13/309 (4.21%) compared to a major complication rate of 65/1122 (5.79%) for patients who underwent hemostasis with manual compression (MC). The major access site complication rate associated with TBA was 5.27%, which is relatively high compared to the complication rate in TFA or TRA. More prospective trials are needed to fully understand the access site complication rate in TBA interventions.
经股动脉入路(TFA)或经桡动脉入路(TRA)是大多数血管内介入病例的主要技术;然而,当TFA和TRA为禁忌证时,经肱动脉(TBA)途径是一种可供选择的入路部位。尽管TBA比TRA有优势,比如能够容纳大型引导导管和器械,但由于人们认为其入路部位并发症发生率较高,在实施TBA时仍存在一些顾虑。本文旨在从当前文献中收集入路部位并发症的发生率。使用以下检索词来识别相关研究:((入路部位并发症)且((血管内且肱动脉)或(经皮肱动脉入路)或(肱动脉)))或(血管内且(经皮肱动脉入路));血管内 + 肱动脉;血管内 + 肱动脉 + 入路部位;以及血管内 + 肱动脉 + 入路部位并发症。纳入了2008年以后发表的探讨经皮TBA介入主要并发症发生率的文章。992篇文章中共有15项研究符合纳入标准。主要入路部位并发症发生率为75/1424(5.27%)。使用血管闭合装置(VCD)进行止血的患者主要并发症发生率为13/309(4.21%),而采用手动压迫(MC)止血的患者主要并发症发生率为65/1122(5.79%)。与TBA相关的主要入路部位并发症发生率为5.27%,与TFA或TRA的并发症发生率相比相对较高。需要更多前瞻性试验来全面了解TBA介入中的入路部位并发症发生率。