Axillary compared to brachial access for endovascular procedures.

ObjectivesLimited knowledge exists regarding access site complication rates between trans-axillary and trans-brachial approaches with sheath sizes ≥6Fr. We retrospectively reviewed our institution experience with access site complications for percutaneous trans-axillary and trans-brachial arterial interventions using sheath sizes ranging from 6Fr to 10Fr.MethodsWe examined 67 endovascular interventions performed over 18 months, restricted to sheath sizes of 6Fr to 10Fr. Procedures utilizing trans-brachial (41 cases) and trans-axillary (26 cases) approaches under sonographic guidance were included. Cases involving hemodialysis accesses and those requiring surgical cut-down were excluded. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of major access site complications (SIR grade-II/III) within 30 days, with data collected on hemostasis method, sheath size, and complications. Statistical analysis involved ANCOVA and Fisher's exact tests, with significance set at p < .05.ResultsSuccessful percutaneous arterial access was achieved in all cases using either approach (trans-axillary or trans-brachial). Closure devices were employed in all axillary punctures and in 71% of brachial punctures. Major access site complications occurred in 7 out of 41 cases (17%) in the trans-brachial group and in 4 out of 26 cases (15%) in the trans-axillary group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between the two groups, regardless of access site or sheath size.ConclusionTrans-axillary access serves as a safe and effective upper limb access method for percutaneous endovascular procedures requiring sheath size of 7Fr or larger when compared to trans-brachial approach.