Clinical Outcomes of Ambulatory Endovascular Treatment Using 4-French and 6-French Femoral Access Strategies: The...

Ambulatory peripheral vascular interventions have been steadily increasing. In ambulatory procedures, 4F devices might be particularly useful having the potential to reduce access-site complications; however, further evidence on their safety and efficacy is needed.

BIO4AMB is a prospective, non-randomized mulitcentre, non-inferiority trial conducted in 35 centres in Europe and Australia comparing the use of 4F- and 6F-compatible devices. The main exclusion criteria included an American Society of Anaesthesiologists class ≥ 4, coagulation disorders, or social isolation. The primary endpoint was access-site complications within 30 days.

The 4F group enrolled 390 patients and the 6F group 404 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Vascular closure devices were used in 7.7% (4F group) and 87.6% (6F group) of patients. Patients with vascular closure device use in the 4F group were subsequently excluded from the primary analysis, resulting in 361 patients in the 4F group. Time to haemostasis was longer for the 4F group, but the total procedure time was shorter (13.2 ± 18.8 vs. 6.4 ± 8.9 min, p < 0.0001, and 39.1 ± 25.2 vs. 46.4 ± 27.6 min, p < 0.0001). Discharge on the day of the procedure was possible in 95.0% (4F group) and 94.6% (6F group) of patients. Access-site complications were similar between the groups (2.8% and 3.2%) and included predominantly groin haematomas and pseudoaneurysms. Major adverse events through 30 days occurred in 1.7% and 2.0%, respectively.

Ambulatory peripheral vascular interventions are feasible and safe. The use of 4F devices resulted in similar outcomes compared to that of 6F devices.