Adverse Events in Open Surgical vs. Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Brachial Access for Endovascular Interventions

Background: Advances in endovascular interventions have made endovascular approaches the first option for treating peripheral arterial diseases. Although radial artery access is commonly used for coronary procedures, the common femoral artery remains the most frequent site for endovascular treatments due to better ergonomics and proven technical success. Meanwhile, data on using upper extremity access via the brachial artery during complex endovascular aortic interventions are lacking. This study aimed to compare the incidence of access site complications between ultrasound-guided percutaneous brachial access (UPA) and open surgical incisional brachial access (OSA) in the management of peripheral arterial diseases. Methods: Patients who underwent treatment for peripheral arterial and aortic disease using brachial access from 2019 to 2023 were included in this study. The primary endpoint was the complication rate at the access site 30 days postoperatively. Access-related complications included bleeding requiring re-exploration, acute upper limb ischemia, thrombosis, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, and nerve injury associated with the brachial access. Results: Brachial access was performed on 485 patients (UPA, n = 320; OSA, n = 165). The mean operation time was 164.5 ± 45.4 min for the percutaneous procedure and 289.2 ± 79.4 min for the cutdown procedure (p = 0.003). Postprocedural hematoma occurred in 15 patients in the UPA group and 2 patients in the OSA group (p = 0.004). Thromboembolic events were observed in 9 patients in the percutaneous group and 3 patients in the OSA group. Reoperation was required for 23 patients in the percutaneous group and 8 patients in the cutdown group. Conclusions: The findings indicate that patients undergoing endovascular arterial interventions have a higher rate of brachial access complications in the UPA group compared to the OSA group.