Premium
Transpedal vs. femoral access for peripheral arterial interventions—A single center experience
Author(s) -
Shah Sooraj M.,
Bortnick Anna,
Bertrand Olivier F.,
Costerousse Olivier,
Htun Wah W.,
Kwan Tak W.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.28209
Subject(s) - medicine , arterial disease , fluoroscopy , femoral artery , peripheral , single center , surgery , revascularization , demographics , randomized controlled trial , radiology , vascular disease , demography , sociology , myocardial infarction
Objective To compare the transpedal approach to established femoral approach for endovascular treatment of infrainguinal peripheral arterial disease. Background Endovascular treatment of infrainguinal peripheral arterial disease is on the rise. Femoral approach is widely used but has significant complications. Recently the primary transpedal approach has been described for endovascular interventions. We hypothesized that transpedal approach could reduce access site related complications. We compared the two approaches in a retrospective cross‐sectional study at a single center. Methods We analyzed demographics, procedural parameters, and complications in patients who underwent a primary transpedal approach for infrainguinal intervention and compared to patients with a traditional femoral approach in our outpatient based endovascular lab. Results The success rate for access was lower in transpedal group compared to femoral (94% vs. 100%, p = .0002). The contrast dose (44 ± 11 mL vs. 68 ± 13 mL, p < .0001), radiation dose (25 mGy [16–43] vs. 48 mGy [36–67], p < .0001) and fluoroscopy time (5.48 min [3.48–11.71] vs. 9.35 min [6.63–14.11], p < .0001) were significantly lower in transpedal group. Conclusion The transpedal approach for infrainguinal revascularization appears to be a reasonable primary approach with high success and low complication rate with significant reduction in radiation and contrast dose. These findings should be further studied in a randomized controlled trial.