Routine use of ultrasound guidance in femoral arterial access for peripheral vascular intervention decreases groin hematoma rates

• Published in: Journal of vascular surgery Vol. 61; no. 5; pp. 1231 - 1238
• Main Authors: Kalish, Jeffrey, Eslami, Mohammad, Gillespie, David, Schermerhorn, Marc, Rybin, Denis, Doros, Gheorghe, Farber, Alik
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.05.2015
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angioplasty - methods; Arterial Occlusive Diseases - diagnostic imaging; Arterial Occlusive Diseases - therapy; Female; Femoral Artery - diagnostic imaging; Femoral Artery - injuries; Groin - blood supply; Hematoma - prevention & control; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Registries; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Surgery; Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0741-5214; 1097-6809; 1097-6809
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.12.003

Use of fluoroscopy and bone landmarks to guide percutaneous common femoral artery (CFA) access has decreased access site complications compared with palpation alone. However, only limited case series have examined the benefits of ultrasound to guide CFA access during peripheral vascular intervention (PVI). We evaluated the effect of routine vs selective use of ultrasound guidance (UG) on groin hematoma rates after PVI. The Vascular Study Group of New England database (2010-2014) was queried to identify the complication of postprocedural groin hematoma after 7359 PVIs performed through CFA access. Hematoma (including pseudoaneurysms) was defined as minor (requiring compression or observation), moderate (requiring transfusion or thrombin injection), and major (requiring operation). Both procedure-level and interventionalist-level analyses were performed. Multivariable Poisson regression models were used to compare hematoma rates of interventionalists based on routine (≥80% of PVIs) and selective (<80%) utilization of UG in the adjusted overall sample and in multiple subgroups. The overall postprocedural groin hematoma rate after PVI was 4.5%, and the rate of combined moderate and major hematoma was 0.8%. Among 114 interventionalists with ≥10 PVI procedures, routine and selective UG was used by 31 (27%) and 83 (73%) interventionalists, respectively. Routine UG was protective against hematoma (rate ratio [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.84; P < .01). Subgroup analysis revealed that routine UG was also protective against hematoma under the following circumstances: age >80 years (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.85; P = .01), body mass index ≥30 (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.90; P = .02), and sheath size >6F (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.79; P < .01). Routine UG may potentially protect against the complication of hematoma for both modifiable and nonmodifiable patient and procedural characteristics. Encouraging routine UG is a feasible quality improvement opportunity to decrease patient morbidity after PVI.