Percutaneous Axillary Access for Placement of Microaxial Ventricular Support Devices: The Axillary Access Registry to Monitor Safety (ARMS)

Mechanical Circulatory Support for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will focus on the indications of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and then analyze in detail all MCS devices available to the operator, evaluating their mechanisms of action, pros and cons, contraindications, and clinical data supporting their use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last decade, the interventional cardiology arena has witnessed an increase in the complexity profile of the patients and lesions treated in the catheterization laboratory. Patients with significant comorbidity burden, left ventricular dysfunction, impaired hemodynamics, and/or complex coronary anatomy often cannot tolerate extensive percutaneous revascularization. Therefore, a variety of MCS devices have been developed and adopted for high-risk PCI. Despite the variety of MCS available to date, a detailed characterization of the patient requiring MCS is still lacking. A precise selection of patients who can benefit from MCS support during high-risk PCI and the choice of the most appropriate MCS device in each case are imperative to provide extensive revascularization and improve patient outcomes. Several new devices are being tested in early feasibility studies and randomized clinical trials and the experience gained in this context will allow us to provide precise answers to these questions in the coming years.

Safety and learning curve of percutaneous axillary artery access for complex endovascular aortic procedures

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous axillary artery access is increasingly used for large-bore access during interventional vascular and cardiac procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and learning curve of percutaneous axillary artery access in patients undergoing complex endovascular aortic repair (fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair [FBEVAR]) requiring large-bore upper extremity access and to discuss best practices for technique and complication management.

METHODS

One-hundred forty-six patients undergoing large-bore percutaneous axillary artery access during FBEVAR in a prospective, nonrandomized, Investigational Device Exemption study between September 2017 and January 2023 were analyzed. Ultrasound guidance and micropuncture were used to access the second portion of the axillary artery and 2 Perclose Proglide or Prostyle devices (Abbott Vascular) were predeployed before the insertion of the large-bore sheath. Completion angiography was performed in all patients to verify hemostatic closure. Axillary artery patency was also assessed on follow-up computed tomography angiography. Patient-related, procedural, and postoperative variables were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

One-hundred forty-five patients underwent successful percutaneous axillary artery access; 1 patient failed axillary access and alternative access was established. The left axillary artery was accessed in 115 patients (79%), and the right axillary artery was accessed in 30 patients (21%). The largest profile sheath was 14 F in 4 patients (2.8%), 12F in 133 patients (91.7%), and 8F in 8 patients (5.5%). Ten patients (6.9%) required covered stent placement (Viabahn, W. L. Gore & Associates) for failure to achieve hemostasis; there were no conversions to open surgical repair. Additional adverse events included transient upper extremity weakness in two patients (1.3%) and transient upper extremity paresthesias in two patients (1.3%). Three patients (2%) suffered postoperative strokes, including one unrelated hemorrhagic stroke and two possibly access-related embolic strokes. On follow-up, axillary artery patency was 100%. There was a trend toward decreased closure failure over time, with seven patients (10%) in the early cohort and three (4%) in the late cohort. There was a significant negative correlation between the cumulative complication rate and the cumulative experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Large-bore percutaneous axillary artery access provides safe upper extremity large-bore access during FBEVAR, achieving successful closure in >90% of patients with a low incidence of access-related complications. There was a trend toward better closure rates with increasing experience, suggesting a learning curve effect. Application of best practices including ultrasound guidance and angiography may ensure safe application of the technique of percutaneous large-bore axillary artery access.

Percutaneous transaxillary approach through the first segment of the axillary artery for the Impella-supported PCI Versus TAVR

Percutaneous transaxillary approach (PTAX) through the first segment of the axillary artery is not widely recognized as a safe method. Furthermore, PTAX has never been directly compared between Impella-supported percutaneous coronary interventions (Impella-PCI) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of PTAX through the first axillary segment in Impella-PCI versus TAVR. In cases where standard imaging guidance was insufficient, a technique involving puncturing the axillary artery "on-the-balloon" was employed. The endpoints were bleeding and vascular complications, as defined by BARC and VARC-3 criteria. PTAX was successfully performed in all 46 attempted cases: 23 for Impella-PCI and 23 for TAVR. Strict adherence to BARC and VARC-3 criteria led to the frequent identification of major bleeding (57%) and a moderately frequent diagnosis of vascular complications (17%). These incidences were primarily based on post-procedural hemoglobin reduction (> 3 g/dl) but not overt bleeding. The Impella group exhibited a higher rate of BARC 3b bleeding due to a greater hemoglobin decline resulting from the prolonged implant duration and PCI itself. Left axillary access was linked to smaller blood loss. Bleeding and vascular complications, as per BARC and VARC-3 definitions, did not affect short-term prognosis, with only 3 Impella patients succumbing to heart failure unrelated to the procedures during one-month follow-up period.

Access Site-Stratified Analysis of the Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Impella-Supported Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

This study aimed to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of Impella-assisted patients with cardiogenic shock, stratified by the access site-transaxillary (TX) or trans-subclavian (TS) versus the conventional transfemoral (TF) approach. For this study, we analyzed the cases entered into the Japanese Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device registry between February 2020 and December 2021. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to identify the predictors of the TX/TS approach, with reference to those who received the conventional TF approach. A log-rank test was performed to compare the 30-day mortality between the 2 approaches. A total of 2,564 cases of Impella were included in the study, of which 167 (6.5%) were accessed by way of the TX/TS approach. TX/TS approach cases were younger and had a higher percentage of concomitant use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or an intra-aortic balloon pump. The predictors of the TX/TS approach included a presentation with the acute coronary syndrome (aOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.63, p <0.001), cardiac arrest (aOR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.36, p = 0.003), cardiogenic shock (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.79, p = 0.002), and inotropic use (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.49, p = 0.033). The 30-day mortality was comparable between TX/TS and TF approaches (29.3% vs 29.6%, respectively; log-rank, p = 0.64). Our analysis revealed that approximately 6% of the Impella-assisted patients with cardiogenic shock received the TX/TS approach as their first access site. These results suggest that the TX/TS approach may be a viable alternative to the TF approach in certain patients requiring Impella support.

Short-term mechanical support with the Impella 5.x for mitral valve surgery in advanced heart failure-protected cardiac surgery

Introduction

Surgical treatment of patients with mitral valve regurgitation and advanced heart failure remains challenging. In order to avoid peri-operative low cardiac output, Impella 5.0 or 5.5 (5.x), implanted electively in a one-stage procedure, may serve as a peri-operative short-term mechanical circulatory support system (st-MCS) in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery.

Methods

Between July 2017 and April 2022, 11 consecutive patients underwent high-risk mitral valve surgery for mitral regurgitation supported with an Impella 5.x system (Abiomed, Inc. Danvers, MA). All patients were discussed in the heart team and were either not eligible for transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) or surgery was considered favorable. In all cases, the indication for Impella 5.x implantation was made during the preoperative planning phase.

Results

The mean age at the time of surgery was 61.6 ± 7.7 years. All patients presented with mitral regurgitation due to either ischemic (n = 5) or dilatative (n = 6) cardiomyopathy with a mean ejection fraction of 21 ± 4% (EuroScore II 6.1 ± 2.5). Uneventful mitral valve repair (n = 8) or replacement (n = 3) was performed via median sternotomy (n = 8) or right lateral mini thoracotomy (n = 3). In six patients, concomitant procedures, either tricuspid valve repair, aortic valve replacement or CABG were necessary. The mean duration on Impella support was 8 ± 5 days. All, but one patient, were successfully weaned from st-MCS, with no Impella-related complications. 30-day survival was 90.9%.

Conclusion

Protected cardiac surgery with st-MCS using the Impella 5.x is safe and feasible when applied in high-risk mitral valve surgery without st-MCS-related complications, resulting in excellent outcomes. This strategy might offer an alternative and comprehensive approach for the treatment of patients with mitral regurgitation in advanced heart failure, deemed ineligible for TEER or with need of concomitant surgery.

Vascular Closure Devices For Axillary Artery Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the technical success and complication rates of vascular closure devices (VCDs) in the axillary artery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched independently by two reviewers to identify observational studies from inception through October 2021. The following outcomes were meta-analyzed: technical success, hematoma, dissection, pseudoaneurysm, infection, and local neurological complications. Complications were also graded as mild, moderate, and severe. A logistic regression evaluating the influence of sheath size for the outcome of technical success rate was performed using individual patient-level data.

RESULTS

Of 1496 unique records, 20 observational studies were included, totaling 915 unique arterial access sites. Pooled estimates were as follows: technical success 84.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78%-89.7%, I2=60.4%), hematoma 7.9% (95% CI: 5.8%-10.6%, I2=0%), dissection 3.1% (95% CI: 1.3%-7.3%, I2=0%), pseudoaneurysm 2.7% (95% CI: 1.3%-5.7%, I2=0%), infection <1% (95% CI: 0%-5.7%, I2=20.5%), and local neurological complications 2.7% (95% CI: 1.7%-4.4%, I2=0%). There was a significant negative association between sheath size and technical success rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.87 per 1 French (Fr) increase in sheath size, 95% CI: 0.80-0.94, p=0.0005). Larger sheath sizes were associated with a greater number of access-site complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.21 per 1 Fr increase sheath size, 95% CI: 1.04-1.40, p=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Off-label use of VCDs in the axillary artery provides an 85% successful closure rate and variable complication rate, depending on the primary procedure and sheath size. Larger sheaths were associated with a lower technical success and greater rate of access-related complications.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Safe arterial access is the foundation for arterial intervention. While the common femoral artery is a well established access site, alternative arterial access sites capable of larger sheath sizes are needed in the modern endovascular era. This article provides the largest synthesis to date on the use of vascular closure devices for percutaneous axillary artery access in endovascular intervention. It should serve clinicians with added confidence around this approach in terms of providing a reference for technical success and complications. Clinically, this data is relevant for patient consent purposes as well as for practice quality improvement in setting safety standards for this access site.

Optimal bail-out and complication management strategies in protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella

Despite the routine use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) with the Impella heart pump, vascular and bleeding complications may occur during removal with or without pre-closure. To safely close the large-bore access (LBA), post-hoc selection of the appropriate treatment of vascular complications is critical to patient recovery and survival. Femoral artery access is typically utilized for LBA, and percutaneous axillary artery access is a common alternative, especially in the instance of severe peripheral artery disease. Optimization of patient outcomes and efficiency of pMCS can be achieved with adequate arterial access using state-of-the-art techniques. Impella removal techniques with or without pre-closure will be addressed as well as the management of large-bore femoral access complications. In addition, treatment strategies to manage patient deterioration during a protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention will be provided.

Position Statement on Vascular Access Safety for Percutaneous Devices in AMI Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

In the United States, the frequency of using percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is increasing. These devices require large-bore vascular access to provide left, right, or biventricular cardiac support, frequently under urgent/emergent circumstances. Significant technical and logistical variability exists in device insertion, care, and removal in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and in the cardiac intensive care unit. This variability in practice may contribute to adverse outcomes observed in centers that receive patients with cardiogenic shock, who are at higher risk for circulatory insufficiency, venous stasis, bleeding, and arterial hypoperfusion. In this position statement, we aim to: 1) describe the public health impact of bleeding and vascular complications in cardiogenic shock; 2) highlight knowledge gaps for vascular safety and provide a roadmap for a regulatory perspective necessary for advancing the field; 3) propose a minimum core set of process elements, or "vascular safety bundle"; and 4) develop a possible study design for a pragmatic trial platform to evaluate which structured approach to vascular access drives most benefit and prevents vascular and bleeding complications in practice.

Hemodynamic-based Assessment and Management of Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a deadly disease entity challenging patients, caregivers, and communities across the globe. CS can rapidly lead to the development of hypoperfusion and end-organ dysfunction, transforming a predictable hemodynamic event into a potential high-resource, intense, hemometabolic clinical catastrophe. Based on the scalable heterogeneity from a cellular level to healthcare systems in the hemodynamic-based management of patients experiencing CS, we present considerations towards systematic hemodynamic-based transitions in which distinct clinical entities share the common path of early identification and rapid transitions through an adaptive longitudinal situational awareness model of care that influences specific management considerations. Future studies are needed to best understand optimal management of drugs and devices along with engagement of health systems of care for patients with CS.

Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comprehensive Review

Transfemoral is the most widely used access to perform transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, alternative access is needed in up to 21% of patients with TAVR because of a myriad of factors. The authors provide a comprehensive review on alternative access for TAVR, discussing the relevant data and providing the pros and cons of each access route.

Managing vascular access and closure for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support

Even with current generation mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, vascular complications are still considerable risks in MCS that influence patients’ recovery and survival. Hence, efforts are made to reduce vascular trauma and obtaining safe and adequate arterial access using state-of-the-art techniques is one of the most critical aspects for optimizing the outcomes and efficiency of percutaneous MCS. Femoral arterial access remains necessary for numerous large-bore access procedures and is most commonly used for MCS, whereas percutaneous axillary artery access is typically considered an alternative for the delivery of MCS, especially in patients with severe peripheral artery disease. This article will address the access, maintenance, closure and complication management of large-bore femoral access and concisely describe alternative access routes.