ESR Essentials: arterial vascular access and closure devices-practice recommendations by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe
Stavros Spiliopoulos,Spyridon Prountzos,Stavros Grigoriadis,Athanasios Diamantopoulos,Ioannis Paraskevopoulos
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11053-3
2024-09-03
Abstract:Vascular access is the initial, very important, step of endovascular procedures. Various access sites include the common femoral artery, brachial artery, radial artery, popliteal artery, and distal tibial vessels (pedal arteries). Successful arterial access requires advanced knowledge of anatomy, as well as proper training and experience. Today, vascular access should be obtained using real-time, ultrasound guidance to reduce access time, patient discomfort, and puncture-related complications including dissection, arteriovenous communication, and bleeding. Nevertheless, high-level evidence to support this recommendation in peripheral procedures is limited and level A data are mainly derived from randomized cardiac trials investigating only radial and femoral access. Vascular closure devices (VCDs) for femoral access can be broadly categorized as active closure devices, compression assist devices, and external/topical hemostasis devices. There is high-level evidence demonstrating that their use is related to less time for ambulation and increased patient satisfaction. However, available data failed to clearly demonstrate a benefit in complications compared to standard manual compression in peripheral endovascular arterial procedures, and thrombotic and infectious complications reported following VCD use remain an issue. Heterogeneity noted in the literature, caused by the vast variety of devices, access sites, sheath sizes, clinical scenarios, and procedures, poses difficulties in data analysis and future study design. As a result, an individualized VCD use is currently suggested for ≥ 5 Fr femoral artery access not only to reduce time to hemostasis and ambulation and to improve patient comfort, but also to reduce bleeding complications in cases of femoral access with increased bleeding risk, deranged coagulation, and large-bore access, though a high level of evidence to support this later recommendation is limited. KEY POINTS: US guidance is strongly recommended for femoral access and is mandatory to obtain more challenging access. The use of VCDs for femoral hemostasis is generally safe, effective, and currently supported by level I evidence. Proper training and correct VCD choice, based on the patient's individual characteristics, are imperative to optimize outcomes.